The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
Former Blade Staffers Launch 'DC Agenda'
D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
City Desk got the scoop on Friday that the ghost bike memorial for Alice Swanson -- who was killed over a year ago after she was struck by a vehicle near the intersection of Connecticut and R Street NW -- had been removed by the D.C. Department of Public Works.
One has to wonder: why? The very purpose of a ghost bike is that it remains in one spot in perpetuity, to serve as a constant reminder of how fragile life can be, the importance of bicycle safety on the streets, and of course -- like all memorials -- draw those passing it to think about what happened. The ghost bike certainly accomplished that; there were many times when I found myself explaining the sad story to visitors.
Perhaps it's too much for us to expect the city to care, but removing a non-obstructive memorial remembering the death of a young person without notifying their family and friends -- and then placing the ghost bike down the street -- seems especially callous. Mayor Fenty and his administration might be building all sorts of shiny, expensive new facilities for the District, but he'd do well to keep the simple, meaningful things, like Swanson's remembrance, in tact. In its place is a small bouquet of flowers, which Swanson's aunt placed at the site yesterday.
"Why has the Mayor taken the bike?" a note amidst the flowers asks. Why, indeed.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Very nice and respectful post Aaron. Rest in Peace Alice.
I bet an email to fenty's office might be able to change this. I'll shoot him an email and see what he can do.
I agree with this post. I feel like the bike had become part of the circle -- a very respectful, non-obtrusive way to remember someone and to remind others to be careful/alert.
I hope a family member or friend has the bike and that it wasn't simply discarded.
Maybe he needed it for a bike race.
Maybe one of his kids needed it, but you better not ask about it
That's lame. I thought I was a beautiful memorial and I've withheld my profanity. Well written...
In the eyes of those who knew her, the ghost bike is meant to serve as a reminder in perpetuity. But in the eyes of city workers it is a nuisance. DOT cannot maintain the lights or the electrical wiring which is protected behind an access panel (visible in the photo above). Streets and sanitation has to maintain a public way free from hazards which restrict the movement of the public and cause a hazard--things like notices, advertisements, and personal bike locks.
I think a memorial is a great idea. But why does a memorial have to violate the rules that everyone else has to follow?
Agreed. The memorial was a wonderful gesture from the community, but the city has no obligation to allow such an obstruction indefinitely.
This memorial was up for more than a year - it provided a great deal more public tribute and remembrance than most accident victims get.
I also thought it was beautiful, but never imagined that it should be permanent. These kinds of things tend to lose meaning over time.
When I passed by it a few times, I've seen people in their cars stare and gawk at the few people who were surrounding it. That intersection is a little tricky if people don't watch out where cars are heading. So I can understand if they removed it to prevent anyone else from getting hurt in that intersection.
I think it was a beautiful and moving memorial. I also think it was time for it to come down.
Well said. My thoughts exactly.
Yes, it's time for the bike to go and, yes, Fenty's douchiness brings a new meaning to the phrase "PR disaster."
All will be forgiven if he agrees to ride the ghost bike around Dupont Circle naked without a seat. While this won't bring back Alice Swanson back, it will provide hundreds of people with a cheap laugh. We've certainly come a long way from the penance Henry II suffered for his complicty in the martyrdom of Thomas à Becket.
Also, get back on the ghost bike, Liz.
I agree. I understand the need to remember someone, but it's been over a year and it was on public space. What if a memorial like this were created in every location of a tragic accident. Does the right to build such a memorial extend to blocking the street? What if everyone did this?
So everyone who dies on the street in DC is entitled to a permanent sidewalk memorial? The memorial was up for more than a year...that's pretty generous in my opinion. The city definitely could have handled the removal better (offering the bike to the family, a chance to be there and say a few final words, etc.), but really...it’s time to clear it out and move on. Every death is sad, but to have a memorial placed forever everytime someone dies an unfortunate early death is a rediculous expectation.
I think it's a worthwhile thing to have a ghostbike memorial in DC. And this location doesn't seem horrible to me- there is plenty of sidewalk space and it is plenty visible to drivers, bicyclists and walkers alike.
But Alice isn't the only one to die an unfortunate and early death on our streets, and an enduring memorial could use a more planning...
Why not ask the city to make this right and enter a process to create something durable?
"Why not ask the city to make this right and enter a process to create something durable?"
Agreed. If a monument is going to be permanent, there needs to be some sort of vetting process. Perhaps a ghost bike mounted into the cement on that same block that can serve as a sort of mother ghost bike for the city. If another similar tragedy does occur in the future, location of accident gets a temporary ghost bike for, say, a year, after which light pole is free to be a light pole again, while mother ghost bike always serves for all cycling victims.
I can't say I really understand the notion that any grassroots group, with no vetting process, should be able to decide to place a memorial to anything anywhere for anybody and expect it to stay there permanently.
Worse than the removal of the ghost bike, I find it really disturbing that the truck driver who hit her was never charged with the accident.
Without the police report (which I know WABA and WashCycle have seen) there is no way of knowing what really happened and if he deserved to be charged. Im a bike commuter and I live in fear of the right hook, but I wont say its the divers fault every time.
Charged with what crime? What would you have charged the driver for?
At minimum, failure to yield right of way. Alice was legally in the bike lane. They both were stopped at the light -- she was going straight, he was turning right onto 20th or Conn. He plowed right into her.
Were you there? Did you witness the accident? Comments like this do not help. I followed this closely after the accident. There was no indication from any eyewitness account that could conclusively place blame on the truck driver. There are plausible scenarios that could have caused this to have happen without negligence on his part.
It was a very sad accident. And in the absence of an eyewitness account or physical evidence which would conclusively indicate negligence on the part of the driver, it is time to stop the witch hunt. Nothing positive will come from trying to ruin a second life in the search for revenge. In this country we are, fortunately, innocent until proven guilty, and there was no good reason to presume fault on the part of the driver.
Please. Let us remember this for what it was -- a tragic accident -- and not some horrible case of justice that was not served. Vengeance is not pretty, especially when it is misplaced.
Thank you Jamie.....my point exactly. I've cut off bikers who try to scoot past me on the right while I'm making a right hand turn. I almost had this exact scenario happen a couple years ago. I ride a bicycle, a motorcycle, and drive a car in this city and I'm careful when I'm operating each one of them, but all it takes is a moment of distraction on a bike and you can put yourself in a position where you're at risk through no fault of the driver of the car. Throw some headphones and an I-pod on and the chances of that happening increase many times over. Being in a bike lane does not automatically mean that every driver can see you.
see here's the problem. if the cyclist is in a bike lane, they're not trying to "scoot past you"--they are in the right-hand lane, YOU are in the left lane and attempting to turn right from the left lane. you need to look, yield and merge. but no one knows to do this because the bike lanes don't seem like real lanes because they're so narrow. end result? you're turning right on green, i'm going straight on green, we collide. technically you're at fault but it is (to me) very understandable how this happens--yielding before a right turn on green is not something that we're taught to do or are used to doing.
this is argument #1 on why bike lane riding can actually be more dangerous than riding in traffic (depending on the bike lane and how much, if any, thought was put into its placement).
now, if there isn't a bike lane and cyclists are attempting to pass you on the right (whether you're turning right or not), they're in the wrong there. all passing should happen on the left, only when there is room, and if there's not room, you line up and wait like everyone else.
I always mentally note the presence of a bicyclist when I'm in my car and I know I'm going to be turning right in a block or two (or more if they're going fast). But if I don't see a bike and then when I slow down at the intersection to look & make sure there aren't pedestrians or bicyclists coming up on my right, I'll make the turn. It was clear when I checked...but in that time....because the bike didn't slow down or notice my turn signal, it can into my path after I determined that it was clear to turn. So yes....it certainly can be the bicyclists fault. That was exactly what happened when I damn near killed a guy on a bike at 13th & G NW. I have no idea where this guy came from, but it was a relatively empty weekend morning on the street and I was using my turn signal and turning my head to look to the right a little (being a bicyclist and a motorcycle owner, I'm hyper-aware of these things) and didn't see him until he was slamming on his brakes and turning hard to avoid going under my wheels. Just because you're in a bike lane does not mean that everyone can see you. If you're not certain that you're seen, then it's up to you to be even more cautious. Just saying that the bicycle has the right of way because they're going straight through the intersection is over-simplifying the issue.
Freckleface, you might want to check out the comments over at the WashCycle...
There are plenty of ways you can legally be making a right turn and still right hook a cyclist, which is what I think happened here based on the portion of the accident report that WashCycle posted.
yep, i read the wash cycle daily. i was (not very clearly, admittedly) talking about a specific and common scenario, really just highlighting that it's kind of stupid to have non-protected bike lanes off to the right....it just breeds this type of accident.
yes, sorry for not being clear. i'm talking pure technicalities here, in a specific scenario (in your scenario, the cyclist is at fault). in actuality and what is possible to do and see while driving a car is quite different. which is why (a) any vehicle passing any other vehicle on the right is dangerous and stupid (b) why sticking bike lanes off to the right is pretty stupid (forces the "pass on the right" issue) (c) why poorly placed bike lanes can be more dangerous than riding in traffic.
and for sure a right hook can be a cyclist's fault, especially if they're riding in the way you've described. i'm just trying to highlight a major inherent flaw to bike lanes--they kind of give two vehicles with conflicting paths the right of way at the same time!
as for me, i stick to the side streets, take the lane (move over when i hear a car behind me, provided the car isn't honking or telling), check my left side when approaching intersections, never pass on the right (except in a bike lane in which case i do so watching the cars' front wheels closely--can't count on a turn signal these days) etc.
The very purpose of a ghost bike is that it remains in one spot in perpetuity, to serve as a constant reminder of how fragile life can be
I'm sorry, but the more I think about this the more it bugs me. I think this is an emotional knee-jerk response.
Do all accident victims deserve a permanent memorial, or only bike riders? What about pedestrians (should we start placing mannequins as "ghost pedestrians?") I think that the ghost bike thing is all well and good, within reason, but to put it bluntly, the fact that there is an active community/culture of bikers doesn't mean that accident victims on bikes deserve permanent memorials.
A lot of people die in unfortunate accidents. Most of them don't get permanent memorials on public property. Why should cyclists be an exception?
And ironically, this one could have endangered cyclists as it could be a distraction to both drivers & cyclists.
It was nice, but it was past time for it to come down.
Yea, I agree that it was a powerful and beautiful memorial but it was time for it to go.
I was there for the dedication, and I think that it was a good memorial. I also believe that memorials should be impermanent and allowed to fade over time, its been over a year and its time to start letting go. That being said, a small plaque in the sidewalk there is a fine longer term memorial.
thank god that nasty trashy "memorial" is finally gone. for a year that eyesore cluttered the corner collecting windsweapt trash and blocking the path of pedestrian traffic. isn't this woman buried someplace? isn't that the appropriate memorial? if the city permits ad hoc memorials in situ and in perpetuity for every person who ever dies here there will no room for the living. truly, it's absurd. does anyone even know if she was observing traffic laws at the time of her unfortunate accident? bikes regularly drive the wrong way on the street, dodging in and out of moving traffic and endangering pedestrians. does anybody know if she was any different? does anyone know with certainty that the driver was totally at fault for this horrible accident? maybe it's time to switch it up a bit and erect a memorial to his misfortune. the poor guy will have to live with this accident for the rest of his life. thank god for the rest of us that we don't have to put up with that crapper of a memorial any longer.
Seriously? You've got to be kidding me. No matter your position on the way people ride bikes or drive in this city, the tone of this post is completely and totally inappropriate. Remember, someone did die. And it was not the truck driver.
Get a heart. Or go and crawl back under the rock that you came from.
Don't feed the troll.
yep - someone died. people die every day. and presumably she's buried or cremated and memorialized somewhere else as well. the monument struck me as an angry, self-pitying, self-indulgent - and unforgiving - narcissistic display. in any case, it doesn't belong on public space. i found utterly unattractive the constant updating of vitriol in the signs posted on the bike and written in chalk on the ground. the people "maintaining" the "memorial" and blocking public space showed an enormous lack of grace. it looked to me an attempt to garnish support for a big legal bonanza. friends in the business tell me the family is seeking nothing short of utterly destroying the hauling company. exactly how do you suppose that will bring their darling back - or honor her in perpetuity? and what about the unfortunate immigrant driving the truck? does anyone imagine this was anything other than a terrible accident? does anyone think it was premeditated homicide?
does anyone even know if she was observing traffic laws at the time of her unfortunate accident? bikes regularly drive the wrong way on the street, dodging in and out of moving traffic and endangering pedestrians. does anybody know if she was any different?
Wow, and they say cyclists are arrogant, entitled sacks of human shit. They could take a lesson from this whack job.
The specifics of this particular crash are fairly well understood. It was a Right Hook, which basically means the cyclist was in far greater danger for following the laws then she would have been if she was cycling in a manner similar to the dangerous examples that you cited. Also, it is fairly well understood that while the driver of the truck is technically responsible to make sure the right of his vehicle is clear, the blind spots of his vehicle are so large that it is impossible for that driver to be certain.
This was not necessarily a case of either driver or cyclist error, unless you consider fact the cyclist could have been safer is she had actually broken the law. The laws that govern bicycle lane position and truck design were at fault.
I walk or drive by the Ghost Bike a few times a week. It's fastened to the curb side of the light pole so it doesn't block pedestrians. I've never seen drivers slowing to look at it. That intersection has always been slow. Drivers turn from the center lane rather than moving right or left, pedestrians wander all over, and the light is poorly timed - much shorter than the lights several blocks east on R St. leading to it. Anyhow the bike is on the right/passenger side of the adjacent Conn. Ave. and R St. lanes, not the driver's side.
The Ghost Bike is a haunting but beautiful reminder for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to watch out for each other. I never knew Alice Swanson but I think of her whenever I pass the Bike, and I take a little extra care on my trip.
In general, while I support the right to memorialize a loved one, there is no right to erect "in perpetuity" memorials on public space. The reasons for this are so obvious that it really goes without explanation. But of course, here on dcist people would debate whether the sky is blue. A year is more than enough. RIP Alice.
Well the sky ISN'T blue. It's grey and overcast from where I'm sitting. And technically the sky is never blue. The oxygen in the atmosphere just reflects the blue frequency of the light spectrum, making it SEEM like it's blue. It's actually every color BUT blue.
Now, what was that about a bike?
So then nothing is the color it seems... the grass isn't green but every color but...
Welcome to my world. Try convincing them that a Red Ryder is not an assault rifle.
You're right. It isn't an "assault rifle."
It's a machinegun.
Rats beware! You can have my Daisy when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Most Daisys are fine. The problem with the Red Ryder is that it has an assault weapon feature. Specifically, it has a "directional targeting system" in the stock that enables mass murderers to quickly hone in on their victims.
That would be the person holding it, right?
Actually, it was my grandfathers daisy, so it has special sentimental value. Even though he used it to shoot the rabbits in his vegetable garden.
You are violating DC's gun laws, you realize.
My grandfather lived in South Dakota. The BB gun is at my brother's in Virginia.
To comply with eminently sensible DC law on the matter, I only use deadfall traps, wrist rockets, and and powderized anti-coagulants when killing rats.
All that said, I don't think I can recall a raid on a home in DC where a BB gun was the target or even announced as being seized. It's much ado about nothing, unless some fool is driving around shooting out bus shelter glass.
I agree with removing this, but DC PR is just whacked. Whenever you do something like this, one of your flacks should flag it in advance and prepare a statement like:
It was necessary to remove the bike for reasons of public safety. The greatest tribute we make for Alice is to continue with the citywide street improvements and bicycle safety education to ensure that this tragedy does not happen again. Under Mayor Fenty...
Put it in a drawer and pull it out in case any questions are asked. It ain't rocket science.
Thanks NewHCE. DC PR is indeed lacking. This would have been a non-story if Fenty's people notified Alice's family and the DC bike ambassador.
+1
+1. Totally.
I don't think a police investigation was ever completed (and therefore no decision about charges could be made), and heard some time ago from MPD that the law firm for the trash company was stonewalling on a re-enactment, which also according to MPD, would be an integral first step. If no investigation has gotten traction, and DC has not applied pressure to move an investigation forward, then I think someone should paint another bike white, hoist it up on a street lamp, project klieg lights on it, and mount a ticker that counts the number of days that this thing goes uninvestigated. Same goes for anyone else who loses a life tragically on our streets. More than a memorial, this ghost bike became a symbol of bureaucratic inaction and, therefore, injustice. No wonder the city wants it gone.
Business owners complaining? Pffft. The city wants this thing gone so that they can duck a lengthy, costly investigation.
This is the first I've heard of a reinactment or a further investigation. The last I read about it in the Post and local news sites (I think it was WTOP) was that based on eye witnesses and the evidence at the scene, the MPD determined that no crime was commited so no charges were filed against the driver. If there's more to it, I'd like to read more about this. Where did you get this?
This is the first I've heard of a reinactment or a further investigation. The last I read about it in the Post and local news sites (I think it was WTOP) was that based on eye witnesses and the evidence at the scene, the MPD determined that no crime was commited so no charges were filed against the driver. If there's more to it, I'd like to read more about this. Where did you get this?
I emailed MPD. After providing my phone number, I was called by an assistant chief officer.
Just FYI, ghost bikes are growing memorials to killed bike riders. so heartbreaking. http://www.ghostbikes.org/
Do you remember his/her name? & about how long ago was this? Just curious is all. If we know, then maybe we can get part of the report.
Don't recall either the date or the name. I suspect he wanted to have the conversation because he c/wouldn't commit anything to writing.
I've had this question about bike lanes for a while. I imagine that most people driving in the right hand lane don't check their right rear view mirror before making a right hand turn. I can easily see how a biker gets in a truck's blindspot.
Agreed. Which is why it is so important for cars and trucks to actually use turn signals. While drivers are very much responsible for ensuring they know what is happening around them, it is easy to miss things that are not other automobiles. Bikers then carry a huge responsibility to watch carefully what is happening around them. But they can't read minds!
If every driver used indicators, stopped at the correct spot instead of in the middle of the crosswalk, came to a stop before turning, parked correctly etc etc; and every pedestrian walked in crosswalks, didn't walk against signals, made deliberate motions at a corner (so people can tell which way they wanted to go, etc etc; and bike riders had rules that made sense (slightly different rules than for vehicles), and actually followed them. . . . ah, a utopian paradise with traffic that flowed sooooo much better AND FASTER! But as long as we all say "well, they don't follow the rules, so why should I. . . " we'll remain in this predicament. . .
sorry for the rant. . .
Bike lanes are more dangerous than riding in traffic. That isn't an opinion, it's a matter of statistic reality. All they do is corral cyclists in a zone that is both within the Door Zone and the Right Hook Zone at the same time. Road engineers love bike lanes because they improve the flow of traffic. Cyclist advocates love them because they encourage more people to take up cycling, due the the false impression that they are somehow safer. Everyone who is trying to encourage a city government or mayor or council to build bike lanes do so by exaggerating the myths about bicycle safety. Fact of the matter is cycling is nearly as safe as walking and not nearly as dangerous as riding in a car... according to every possible form of statistical analysis. Sure accidents do happen, and on incredibly rare occasions cause fatalities. So does gardening. But cyclists are killed in accidents only about 20% as often as drivers hit and kill pedestrians... which happens to be a statistically negligible number of people in its own right. About the same number of Americans die in bicycle accidents every year as the number of American die in airplane accidents as well as train accidents: about 2 incidents per million.
You do realize that your whole take on statistics is painfully flawed. The number of cyclists is a rounding error to the number of drivers / automobile passengers.
Nope. You are wrong. The governement measures safety for all three by measuring incidents per million miles traveled and million hours traveled. When measured both of these ways, cycling is nearly as safe as walking and much safer than riding in a car. As a straight up measurement of incidents cycling is 44 times safer than traveling by automobile and 7 times safer than walking.
Oh, I'm sorry. I see what you mean. If you mean the statistics are flawed because I used the word "driver" you are right. I meant to mean individuals traveling by car.
Regardless, cycling is safer.
In Copenhagen, they took the bike lanes and raised them about 4 inches higher than the roadway. The sidewalk is about 4 inches higher than that, so you end up with a set of steps from the roadway to the sidewalk. You don't seen any cars veering into the bike lane because there is an edge to the bike paths.
At intersections, the roadway is leveled out, but as soon as you pass the cross-street, the bike path becomes elevated again. Street parking didn't seem to be as commonplace as it is here in the District, but in areas with both, they kept the parking lane and the bike path wide enough that cyclists wouldn't get killed by an opening car door.
It was pretty cool! You see thousands of people biking through Copenhagen. It and public transportation are the primary means of getting around (other than walking of course).
Unfortunately, the American standards are less helpful toward safety than nothing. 7 Feet for parked cars, 5 feet for bike lane, then car lane... all on the same plane. Doors themselves swing out 4 feet. If your wheel line is all the way to the left of the bike lane on the white line, considering handlebar width, a cyclist may only have 2 inches of clearance... which doesn't even take into consideration the natural tendency to swerve to avoid a car door. The only place in an American 5 foot wide bicycle lane that is actually safe is to ignore the bike lane altogether and ride 1 foot to the left of the bike lane white line.
Still, I ride in bike lanes all the time. Mostly right on the line. It's more convenient and easier than using all the thought processes of vehicular cycling, but it isn't any safer.
While its a shame that the ghost bike was taken down with out warning abetter memorial to this young women is for evryone to be more aware of your surroundings. I know her death has made me more aware when I drive downtown.
What I propose is that one of the people who want the ghost bike to remain visible for people to see and be reminded of traffic & bike safety....put it in your yard or in front of your house. This way it can remain as the symbol you say it represents. There....problem solved!
I was eating at LaTomate today and witnessed some of their management go outside and rip down what appeared to be part of the memorial on the lamp post. I took pictures of them doing it.
Mike B - can you post the pix somewhere? The bike & memorial remnants aren't on their property and don't even face the restaurant.
What next? They don't like the way you look they're gonna shove you off the sidewalk?
Mike B and robotico - while you're at it, would you please let us all in on whether the Swanson family and the memorialistas own the public space on which they want to squat their pathetic and irritating memorial to anger and law suit bonanzas - in perpetuity?
would you please let us all in on whether the Swanson family and the memorialistas own the public space on which they want to squat their pathetic and irritating memorial to anger and law suit bonanzas - in perpetuity?
Oops! Carefull, there buddy. I think you got a little spittle on your keyboard there while you were frothing incoherently with feckless petulant rage.
Here's a tissue.
Rest in Peace, Alice
After I got over the lamentable mean-spirited tone of many of the comments, I started thinking in the vein of Jonathan Swift. You know, these people who say monuments to the dead should fade out or be removed may have a point. In fact, I recommend we remove some more memorials in this city, and perhaps others, too.
Let's start with the Vietnam Memorial John McCain made it out of Hanoi, so we don't need that reminder of death and suffering.
Then, we can move onto the Belmont-Sewall House on Capitol Hill. Last Wednesday was the eighty-ninth anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constituion, so we no longer need to remember Alice Paul, Susan B. Anthony, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
While we're at it, why don't we take down those pesky signs announcing Raoul Wallenberg Place? It's so confusing! I mean, here you are, traveling along fifteenth street towards the Tidal Basin and that dead President's memorial, and the street changes names! Oh yeah, and let's eliminate that marble thingy on the tidal basin -- who needs a memorial to slave holders?
But wait, I can hear the naysayers claim: Alice Swanson was not a president, she did not get an Amendment to the Constitution passed and ratified, nor did she rescue people from tyranny. She's just this anonymous woman who got killed on the way to work.
No need to memorialize her! Several more cyclists will die this year, and we won't remember them, either. Specious logic sucks.
Well when more than the people who passed by the bike, read the articles, or have joined in the debate on blogs know about Alice, then she herself can stand as a memorial. Until then, leave it to all bike riders who die needlessly because of the risks of bike safety to honor a memorial of this nature.
Vietnam, the 19th Amendment, the Presidents, etc., have made an impact on society as a whole, whereas the death of one woman whose tale may have meaning and a good reason to know has not. This isn't hating on Alice or her memory, but there can't just be random memorials put up for people in these situations. Official memorials go through tons of planning and red tape to get put in place. If you feel so strongly about a memorial for Alice, why don't you stop whining about it here and be proactive and get working on an official memorial for her? That would be a nice way to honor her memory, and I would support that. But a squatting memorial without city planning I do not.
I honestly do NOT see why there can not be random memorials in these situations. Come to my neighborhood any day of the month and you will find light posts festooned with balloons, teddy bears, cards, and ribbons commemorating this child or that who ran into the street and got hit and killed. It hasn't happened in the last month or two that I know of, but these memorials stay up for months, and I do not see why they shouldn't. Either we believe, as Kant wrote, that every life is inviolable, or we start drawing up arbitrary metrics for whose life counts more. I go with option A.
Every single time.
And the ghost bike was up for over a year. I'm all for temporary memorials, but if you want something to stay there "forever" then go through the correct channels, don't squat on public property.
PeterB....so all those teddy bears and balloons should be allowed to stay forever and never be removed? I want a memorial for my cat that got hit by a car when I was 5....does that mean I'm allowed to litter the sidewalk forever with a fuzzy ball of yarn and a box of kitty litter so I can remember her and make drivers remember that they need to look out for kitties? And your logic of the memorials for historic figures and events vs. the ghost bike is the stupidest argument on here.