Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Barish on December 10, 2012 at 8:05am

Are the building owners entrenched in their position or open to discussion?  Is the alderman blindly supporting his constituant or is he open to discussion?  As asked above, who owns the parkway between the sidewalk and  street where the bike is located? If its the building owner they likely have the right to remove it themselves. If not its more an issue of politics and communication and letting everybody know they are being heard. Given that you were contacted I suspect its public property and that there is an opportunity for dialogue.

 

I am a little concerned about the slippery slope. If a bike is removed it is more likely that another will be removed and so forth. Currently, these bikes have a lot of meaning to the biking population and to the families of those who have been lost.  Given recent accounts of biking tragedies there could be a time when there are simply too many ghost bikes and they have less meaning and literally take away bike parking spaces. Thankfully, we are still far from that.

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on December 10, 2012 at 8:14am

It does not seem that anyone is accusing you or assuming that it is you who wants to remove the bike.  I am sure that everyone appreciates that you are taking the time to do this.

However, some of us do not understand why you are required to remove it.  If that is something you cannot address because of your position or cannot answer on a public forum, I can understand that. 
 
Charlie Short said:

Just to be clear: I DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE BIKE, I want to figure out a solution that relocates the bike. If we can't figure out a solution, I'm required to remove it.

Permalink Reply by BruceBikes on December 10, 2012 at 8:30am

As an FYI, the language on abandoned bikes in the Municipal Code is posted below.

(It looks like a ghost bike would technically be considered abandoned.  Perhaps the code could be amended eventually to allow for memorials, etc.)

9-52-071 Abandoned bicycles.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon any bicycle on any public way within the city. A bicycle shall be deemed abandoned if it: (1) is in such a state of disrepair as to be incapable of being operated in its present condition, or (2) has not been moved or used in more than seven days and bears physical indicia of having been deserted.

(b) Any bicycle deemed abandoned pursuant to subsection (a) of this section may have a notice affixed to it which informs the bicycle's owner that the bicycle appears to be abandoned. The commissioner of transportation or his designee is authorized to affix such notices upon bicycles. This notice shall indicate:

(1) a telephone number for the owner to call to inform the department of transportation that the bicycle is not abandoned; and

(2) the date after which the bicycle may be removed if it is not claimed by its owner.

A bicycle shall not be deemed to be abandoned if the owner of the bicycle, within seven days of the affixing of a notice of abandonment, notifies the department of transportation that the bicycle is not abandoned.

(c) If a bicycle is not relocated or claimed by its owner within seven days of the affixing of a notice of abandonment, that bicycle may be removed and disposed of by the commissioner of transportation or his designee.

(Added Coun. J. 7-21-04, p. 28659, § 1)

Permalink Reply by Charlie Short 2.9 on December 10, 2012 at 8:35am

Lisa-

Because of this ordinance,

"9-52-071 Abandoned bicycles - Permalink

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon any bicycle on any public way within the city. A bicycle shall be deemed abandoned if it: (1) is in such a state of disrepair as to be incapable of being operated in its present condition, or (2) has not been moved or used in more than seven days and bears physical indicia of having been deserted. (b) Any bicycle deemed abandoned pursuant to subsection (a) of this section may have a notice affixed to it which informs the bicycle’s owner that the bicycle appears to be abandoned. The commissioner of transportation or his designee is authorized to affix such notices upon bicycles. This notice shall indicate: (1) a telephone number for the owner to call to inform the department of transportation that the bicycle is not abandoned; and (2) the date after which the bicycle may be removed if it is not claimed by its owner. A bicycle shall not be deemed to be abandoned if the owner of the bicycle, within seven days of the affixing of a notice of abandonment, notifies the department of transportation that the bicycle is not abandoned. (c) If a bicycle is not relocated or claimed by its owner within seven days of the affixing of a notice of abandonment, that bicycle may be removed and disposed of by the commissioner of transportation or his designee.

Added Coun. J. 7-21-04, p. 28659, § 1"

I am required to remove a bike (or contact the owner) whenever an alderman (or citizen) asks (after 7 days.) We don't remove bikes from CTA property (or poles,) fyi.

Permalink Reply by BruceBikes on December 10, 2012 at 8:35am

If I recall this crash, the driver who caused it lives right there or very nearby.  I don't condone their actions and don't want to see it removed, but if I lived there, I wouldn't want to see a ghost bike for a fatality I caused in front of my house every day.

Juan Primo said:

Look up 933 N. LaSalle St, Chicago IL 60610 on google streetview.  His bike is there, locked to a sign in front of a residential building.

 

And not bothering anyone.

 

Clint was killed when he was doored on LaSalle Street.

Permalink Reply by Charlie Short 2.9 on December 10, 2012 at 8:37am

Good idea...

BruceBikes said:

As an FYI, the language on abandoned bikes in the Municipal Code is posted below.

(It looks like a ghost bike would technically be considered abandoned.  Perhaps the code could be amended eventually to allow for memorials, etc.)

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on December 10, 2012 at 8:42am

Charlie and BruceBikes, thank you.  That makes sense!

Permalink Reply by Mike Keating on December 10, 2012 at 8:53am

Great point.

It seems hard to believe that if someone from the City explained WHY the bike is there, and suggested it stay, that a landlord would object. Based on the picture it looks like the bike is on city property, not private property.

notoriousDUG said:

Does the building owner understand what it is and why it is there?

Maybe if they were aware of why it was there and the importance of it to many people it may no longer be an issue.

Permalink Reply by Mike Keating on December 10, 2012 at 9:00am

Charlie, I obviously respect the care, attention, and respect you have given this issue, but I respectfully disagree with the interpretation of the cited ordinance.

The ghost bike is absolutely being "used" per (a)(2). The bike is being "used" all day every day as a memorial to the life of Clint Miceli. The bike is on the map of ghost bikes in the city and is noted by several media references. The ordinance does not say it must be "ridden." It also wasn't "deserted" or "abandoned" under any interpretation of those terms. The fact that it is completely painted white is "indicia" of it NOT being deserted or abandoned. The bike was carefully and specifically placed there for a specific purpose.

Charlie Short said:

Lisa-

Because of this ordinance,

"9-52-071 Abandoned bicycles - Permalink

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon any bicycle on any public way within the city. A bicycle shall be deemed abandoned if it: (2) has not been moved or used in more than seven days and bears physical indicia of having been deserted.

Permalink Reply by Mike Keating on December 10, 2012 at 9:15am

I just called and spoke to a lady at the rectory. She said that they were aware of the ghost bike and remembered when Clint Miceli was killed. She stressed that they did not ask to have the bike removed and doesn't know who did. She said there were some abandoned bikes in the past, but she was aware of the ghost bike. She was very nice and appreciative of my call. 

But there's a lot of multi-units buildings on that street. So it could be just about anyone in the neighborhood that called. Seems to me that perhaps a good option to handle the situation in the immediate moment is to move the bike to a nearby location?

Permalink Reply by David Barish on December 10, 2012 at 9:33am

If the bike is in front of the rectory, if they have no problem with it, if its not an "abandoned bike" and I agree with Mike that this is the correct interpretation of a ghost bike,  and if its indeed public property it may be best to leave the bike exactly where it is. If somebody else is complaining and the owners of the property where the bike are located have no issue it may be best to have a nice conversation with the alderman about why the bike should remain. 

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 10, 2012 at 9:40am

+1

David Barish said:

If the bike is in front of the rectory, if they have no problem with it, if its not an "abandoned bike" and I agree with Mike that this is the correct interpretation of a ghost bike,  and if its indeed public property it may be best to leave the bike exactly where it is. If somebody else is complaining and the owners of the property where the bike are located have no issue it may be best to have a nice conversation with the alderman about why the bike should remain. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page