The Chainlink

Personal Injury Attorney wants to donate "Ghost Racks."

Views: 707

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think it should be up to the family.  If they prefer a ghost rack then that is their wish.  But if the family wants a ghost bike then that wish should be respected as well.  Same goes if they do not want a memorial.  

I for one would not lock my bike to a ghost rack.  It wouldn't feel right to me. 

I had the same reaction, Rich.  It would feel like a desecration.

Rich S said:

I for one would not lock my bike to a ghost rack.  It wouldn't feel right to me. 

I saw a news blurb on that earlier this week, but I admit I did not read it closely, and I thought the firm intended to donate single racks to permanently anchor ghost bikes in place--not functional multi-racks for cyclists to use. Unsurprisingly, I like my own idea better.

I think that "ghost racks"--functional bike racks for everyday use, painted white in place of a ghost bike--don't really serve the purpose of a ghost bike. They don't have the impact and their utility changes the nature of the memorial. This "ghost rack" concept is more akin to benches with "in memory of" plaques than they are to the stark reminder that is ghost bike. A ghost bike requires you to think about what happened there; it doesn't sound like the ghost rack would have the same impact. I would also feel weird locking my bike to one.

Cynicism aside, I don't mind publicity masquerading as public service, where it actually accomplishes a public service, but I dislike publicity masquerading as public service when it disrupts the culture it's claiming to assist. I think the law firm should leave the memorials alone and donate functional bike racks near the ghost bikes, with permanent in memoriam placards, if the family approves.

Would the personal injury law firm's name be on ghost rack?  That would certainly change my opinion of the venture.

I appreciate that he's trying to do something, but I don't think he understands the group he's trying to reach. End result, it comes off as a publicity grab on someone else's tragedy.

Ghost bikes are moving to me and serve as a solid reminder. A white rack, unless there's something to draw attention to why that rack is different, doesn't have the same impact.

h'

As the undisputed leader in this area, what do you think about this?

Considering that the ghost bikes are prone to vandalism, this seems like a fine and functional idea. If the racks are merely your standard upside down U but painted white, few people will understand the reference, though. But if the shape is altered and/or there is some type of signage or lettering on the rack that indicates it's a ghost bike tribute, then I don't see a huge difference and actually see it as a big advantage of the ghost racks. Ultimately, it's a good thing for everyone when cyclists have more secure options for locking up their bike.

Sue - You wouldn't be the first person to view this as a publicity grab.

Sue Clark said:

I appreciate that he's trying to do something, but I don't think he understands the group he's trying to reach. End result, it comes off as a publicity grab on someone else's tragedy.

My viewpoint on this is a little utilitarian. I like the idea in general, but some ghost bikes are located in places where a rack really isn't needed (Western and Logan comes to mind). I understand the viewpoint that a ghost bike is sacred, but honestly, aside from them being vandalized, as more cyclists fall victim to vehicle traffic, ghost bikes become a little impractical.

It's kind of a cool idea, actually... the fallen cyclist will always have a place to lock up his or her bike.

I think some of my quotes was content taken from forum discussions....

I also think it should be up to the family.

I was just thinking the same thing myself.  Really pathetic journalism tactic.  


Cameron 7.5 mi said:

I've noticed a rise in this type of "interview". While yes the person the quote is attributed to really did say that, it's sort of dishonest for the reporter to frame it a way that makes it sound like they interviewed the person instead of pulling a quote out of context from an online discussion.

Even when they do acknowledge that it's gleaned from an online discussion board of some sort, it's still not journalism and it makes me cringe.


Cameron 7.5 mi said:

I've noticed a rise in this type of "interview". While yes the person the quote is attributed to really did say that, it's sort of dishonest for the reporter to frame it a way that makes it sound like they interviewed the person instead of pulling a quote out of context from an online discussion.



Julie Hochstadter said:

I think some of my quotes was content taken from forum discussions....

I also think it should be up to the family.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service