I know that the subject comes up regularly, but I finally made a photo report for people who are curious about whether it is a real problem or if it is all just hysterical exaggeration.

For those of you who are still tempted to leave a trace of your love of the moment (I can't imagine stable long term couples feeling the slightest need to do this), I beg you to examine what "love" has done to the Pont des Arts: http://tinyurl.com/omsog3n

As for whether it is a "unique" thing to do, the photos speak for themselves.

I'm still curious about whether it's a real problem.

Artefacts - like this bridge - that some like have attracted the attention of others wanting to do something else with it for millennia. You may not like the ex-votos that still clutter up the walls of churches all over France - but they're what some people want to do in churches.

When conservatives decry the changes such behaviour creates, they're usually on pretty shaky ground. You can claim the statue of St Peter in St Peter's Basilica has had its foot "ruined" by centuries of rubbing - or see the rubbing as evidence of the statue's relationship with the church's visitors. Banning the practice, though, is putting the views of today's administrators ahead of the desires of centuries of pilgrims.

Personally, I'd say these locks marginally enhance what's just a run of the mill bridge - as do the shops on the Ponte Vecchio. If there's real evidence they're undermining the bridge's fabric, there may be other ways of avoiding the problem - like banning the sale in the immediate neighbourhood of locks liable to rust.

On the evidence Kerouac provides, though, all we can say for certain is that Kerouac doesn't like the fad.

I don't like self-indulgent photo-blogs which purport to highlight a problem but merely show that some people might find something unsightly. But I don't go round whining about what they've "done" to real debate.

Well, we have now learned quite a bit about your own aesthetic values, flanner.

Wow. Great photos. Last time I walked on the bridge in 2012 I could actually see some of the bridge but no more! I saw a tv program recently about Cologne's lock bridge and only found more.
http://www.atlasobscura.com/categories/love-locks.

Interesting to observe differences in locks. Most have the names scribbled with indelible marker, but I saw one that has the names and date engraved on the lock. There was also one that looked like a combination lock. And does the one with three interlocked circles indicate a ménage à trois?

I don't think there's any analogy between these locks, which are not wanted by the people who maintain the bridge, and ex voto plaques, which were very much encouraged by the churches themselves and do no structural damage to the church. The bridges do have to be maintained, including periodic painting and anti-rust treatment, and obviously it can't be done with all these locks affixed.

Maybe they should sentence offenders (lock sellers) to spend a week removing the locks.

I meant to comment on St Cirq's thread last week. I think it is defacing, destructive over time and infantile.

While perhaps some of the defaced bridges may be "run of the mill" I don't place the Pont Alexandre in that category and wish Paris had the resources to remove the locks daily.

I'm going to agree with Flanneruk here. Were you never in love? Why is this any worse than carving trees, defacing public buildings or spraying "Tim loves Jenny" in fluorescent paint on Stonehenge?

There are lots of things which irritate me - graffiti, litter, vandalism. In comparison the locks are fairly low on my list.
In fact, when I first saw a few locks on the Ponte Vecchio around 1997, I thought it was quite romantic.

Maybe they should provide some sort of installation intended for that particular purpose.

I assume local perceptions differ.
After browsing through Google I learned that Cologne tolerates the 40,000+ padlocks on its love lock bridge (and put a lock thief in jail), Lubeck promotes this practise and Berlin has a €35 penalty (on historic bridges).
The real problem seems to be with old bridges when cast iron (or anything less than modern day steel) corrodes at contact with steel locks. With modern bridges the aspect of desctructiveness does not seem to fly.
And, by the way, if it was such an issue with Pont des Arts, why not have police check the situation a few times per week, issue tickets for "lovelockers", remove lock sellers, have locks removed and destroyed weekly? After a few weeks, I'd guess that most "lovers" would not want to hand their locks where they get removed... is there at least a sign telling people it is illegal to hang locks on the bridge, and are fines imposed? If not, how relevant can it be...

I'm with Kerouac. This isn't love, any more than spray-painting a heart on somebody else's wall. It's graffiti. Cute at the start, maybe, but now cities in many countries are scarred by tedious imitations. Real lovers need to find a more imaginative declaration, or stay private.

Willit,

It may be no worse than carving trees, defacing buildings or Stonehenge but I'm against all those as well.

Yes, I've been in love and am in love but never felt the need for this sort of PDA.

<i>Why is this any worse than carving trees, defacing public buildings or spraying "Tim loves Jenny" in fluorescent paint on Stonehenge? </i>

Defacing public buildings is generally considered illegal, and the other two activities mentioned are generally frowned upon.

Paint is less destructive than the locks that will encourage rust on the bridge railing through movement and holding back the flow of rain water, and are far more expensive to remove. Unlike flanneruk, I think that the locks do nothing to enhance the bridge, however ordinary it might otherwise appear.

The problem in France is that "anything that is not forbidden is authorized" so there is no legal basis for stopping people (except illegal lock vendors). And nobody is going to pass a special law about this when ordinary citizens can come up with 500 issues that they consider more important.

There was a similar problem briefly a couple of years back -- ads painted directly on sidewalks. There are plenty of laws against defacing walls but apparently sidewalks had no official protection. The problem didn't last very long, most likely because <b>everybody</b> hated it. I guess we're lucky that tourists have not yet decided that it would be romantic to paint their love on the sidewalks.

We first saw such "bridge locks" 3 years ago in Bamberg, Germany and had no clue what they were about at first, but found them an ugly intrusion. Now the trend was just reported on the numerous bridges of Pittsburgh, PA, USA. I agree with Kerouac...ugly indeed. Authorities should penalize it.

IF the locks were harmful to the bridges, the provisions against dégradation du matériel offer enough substance for police action. Cf. Article 322-1 Code Penal, first para, penalties up to 30,000 Euros.
As you do not have Case Law in France, you do not need special laws for bridges if the general provision covers the crime.
As you say that the authorities seek no action against the people who attach locks, one must assume that no damages to the bridge are seen by the authorities.

You could also seek action against the love locks following 2nd para of 322-1 C.P. as the locks could easily be regarded as "signs" mounted without prior authorization. Thus a penalty of 3750 euros could be enforced.
Here you also see that the ads on sidewalks did not disappear because of public outrage but because also "voies publiques" are covered against "non-damaging/ visual vandalizing" and not just houses or vehicles.

So, one can only assume that the lack of police intervention must be based on the fact that the locks are not harmful to the bridge, and that the City of Paris considers the tourist euro value of that attraction higher than the possibility to press charges under the provision against visual vandalism. Would probably be bad press, and why would the City hurt an important economic sector just because the locals or some locals don't like it?

If you consider the fact that ONE lock is not harmful to the bridge, it would be difficult to prosecute anybody just because 20,000 other locks are there, placed by unknown people.

It's always surprising when some try to excuse bad behavior by citing other instances of the same. Looking at these photos reminded me of a careened boat I saw recently, its beautifully shaped hull encrusted with barnacles. This is nothing more than another form of the canine sidewalk defecation that used to be such a problem.

Roger -
In many other cities, the local authorities are actually promoting their "love lock bridges" as a "must see" sight for tourists or officially tolerate. So bad bahavior is not the universally approved assessment - not even by those who own the bridges.
While I find those locks mildly silly, I assume that opposition against it is more a minority opinion or a pet peeve issue than anything with more substance.

kerouac-
degradation means that you affect something without destroying it (necessarily). You'd also be convicted of degredation if you scratched a window a few times without breaking it.
And, as I tried to show, you also have provisions against visually damaging an object like the bridge. The inactivity of the authorities shows IMO that people in charge at the city's administration do not wish to take that road.

"It's always surprising when some try to excuse bad behavior by citing other instances of the same."

But it isn't bad behaviour - it's not illegal, it's just some people including the OP. don't like it. The other things I mentioned are obviously bad behaviour - they break laws but the collected Fodors want to equate them with what the "perpetrators" see as romantic.

The people doing it don't contemplate the long term damage that the lock may or may not do.

It's a form of tagging, whether or not it is illegal on the books.