Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: General Road and Highway Discussion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(07-18-2022, 03:44 PM)Bytor Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-18-2022, 02:30 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, all of those things are true, but SUVs seem benign next to pickup trucks, and as far as I can tell, they ignored those.

It's a stupid campaign in any case; what is the best possible outcome this group thinks is going to come from this?

They didn't ignore them, they acknowledged that trucks are often used by tradespeople. Like I said, I don't agree with it because of the possibility of vehicle damage, but I think it was a smart move to not target pick-ups as you know there'd be people with valid work trucks who got deflated and not just penis-extender pickups.

The reactions to this on r/kitchener and r/waterloo are mostly irrational anger with a soupçon of overt threats, and valid work trucks getting hit would only make it worse.

I think it's pretty easy to tell what trucks are work trucks...it's impossible for a truck to be used for work without changes...but even the model will make it clear...short bed, big cab....not used for work. I'm sure there are rare exceptions, but I'm betting you could guess 98%. (Leaving aside the people who think they use their trucks for work because they drive them TO a job site, but don't actually do any work with them).
(07-18-2022, 05:42 PM)bravado Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-18-2022, 02:30 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, all of those things are true, but SUVs seem benign next to pickup trucks, and as far as I can tell, they ignored those.

It's a stupid campaign in any case; what is the best possible outcome this group thinks is going to come from this?

This campaign is a strange move from a bunch of radicals that will only piss people off..

But SUVs are not benign due to their immense numbers:
The growth of SUVs have single-handedly stopped any emissions savings we could have had in the last 20 years due to more efficient combustion technology.
They contribute (majority) to the rising numbers of pedestrian injuries and deaths due to their worse sight lines, higher hoods, and heavier weight.
That increased weight is consuming infrastructure at a faster rate than otherwise could have been, and not being taxed appropriately for it.
They have accelerated the already growing size of cars, leading to more congestion and even more inflated parking lots.
They're obviously driving up prices and contributing to the auto financing debt "crisis" - and still using the frames and engines from smaller cars that would save people money and emissions if they just bought that!

All of these facts are true for trucks, but we kinda already knew it for them... Someone buying an SUV today has no idea the increased costs that they are incurring vs the sedan/wagon that their parents would have bought in the same stage of life.

Deflating their tires is just not going to work to convince people anyways.

Except now they will know...now they will feel that pain directly.

There is method to this madness.
Five years ago...even three years ago, I'd agree with you folks here, up in various levels of anger and hate about this direct action. Today...I'm not actually taking a position. I'm not sure whether I agree, I'm not certain how effective this will be. But I am certain that the current protests have been ineffective (School strike for climate has been happening for years and we are literally planning new highways right now...we have no new vehicle standards...etc. etc.).

When leadership ignores existential problems, protests will evolve into more and more significant and inconvenient protests. This is as minor as you can get...it's an inconvenience, nothing more, no violence, no property damage.

As for effectiveness, like it or not (and I don't) there's a history of violent protest and direct action being effective.

My preference is for non-violent protest to be effective. But it working or not working is not up to me, and at the moment, it is not working. I am sweating away at a record +40C here in Europe...France and Spain are on fire...we need to do something.

Here is an excellent YouTube video discussing protest with more expertise and subtlety than I can provide in a few paragraphs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4G1Gjv...osophyTube
(07-18-2022, 10:25 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]SUVs and other vehicles and the systems of which they are a part have major problems.

That being said, the criminals responsible for this campaign of vandalism should be tracked down and punished to the full extent of the law, and any legitimate activist who knows what’s good for their cause will disassociate themselves from this sort of criminal activity.

This should be investigated as much as any similar crime and definitely less than any more serious crime. I.e., the police should do nothing just like they do for theft of a bicycle.
(07-19-2022, 01:58 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-18-2022, 05:42 PM)bravado Wrote: [ -> ]This campaign is a strange move from a bunch of radicals that will only piss people off..

[…]
Deflating their tires is just not going to work to convince people anyways.[/b]

Except now they will know...now they will feel that pain directly.

There is method to this madness.

Just because there is method to it doesn’t mean it isn’t madness.

It’s pure vandalism. As far as I’m concerned it could be random and it would be no worse. Arguably not even as bad, because these people are pretending to have thought things through and arrived at a considered decision to participate in an action, when that action is really just criminal activity.

What next, break the windows of businesses of which we disapprove? There are a lot of SUV dealerships with some pretty nice windows…
(07-19-2022, 01:58 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Except now they will know...now they will feel that pain directly.

There is method to this madness.
What they will know is that a bunch of radicals disapprove of their vehicle choice. The question is whether the action is *persuasive*. Will they convince anyone to change their behaviour? Will they influence decision-makers? It's very doubtful. I have a hard time seeing this as anything but souring future engagement by climate or active transport activists with the public and these affected people specifically.
That is a weird thought experiment: what crime has been committed by letting air out of a tire? Vandalism? “Destruction” of property? Is letting air out theft or nuisance?

If you then got into a crash because you didn’t notice your flat tire, isn’t there a responsibility to check your vehicle for roadworthiness before driving?
The first offence is trespassing by going onto someone's property to deflate the tires. Yes deflating someone's tires is a criminal act of mischief contrary to section 430(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada. And further, if someone drove their vehicle without knowing the tires were deflated, and that was a contributing factor to an accident for which someone was injured, you would be subject to the charge of Mischief Endangering Life contrary to section 430 (2) C.C.C.
(07-19-2022, 07:01 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2022, 01:58 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Except now they will know...now they will feel that pain directly.

There is method to this madness.

Just because there is method to it doesn’t mean it isn’t madness.

It’s pure vandalism. As far as I’m concerned it could be random and it would be no worse. Arguably not even as bad, because these people are pretending to have thought things through and arrived at a considered decision to participate in an action, when that action is really just criminal activity.

What next, break the windows of businesses of which we disapprove? There are a lot of SUV dealerships with some pretty nice windows…

You're welcome to disagree with direct action although, as I have done as late, I'd suggest you least try to understand the societal reasons why it is happening, and it's historical context, and it's historical record of effectiveness.

But to suggest that random behaviour is "better" is absurd on the face. You are suggesting that while the effect on the victims is identical, it is somehow worse BECAUSE those doing it want a better world, rather than a more chaotic one?

Rosa Parks sitting on the bus was also a criminal act. It was also a planned protest. These things are not mutually exclusive.
(07-19-2022, 08:14 AM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2022, 01:58 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Except now they will know...now they will feel that pain directly.

There is method to this madness.
What they will know is that a bunch of radicals disapprove of their vehicle choice. The question is whether the action is *persuasive*. Will they convince anyone to change their behaviour? Will they influence decision-makers? It's very doubtful. I have a hard time seeing this as anything but souring future engagement by climate or active transport activists with the public and these affected people specifically.

Maybe, or maybe not...historically there is a long history of direct action and even violent protests being effective. Whether this is an example, I do not know for sure, only time will tell.

What I do know is that there are lots of factors that influence people's choice of vehicles, preferences obviously, but also social and societal factors. I chose car colours that limit my exposure to enforcement and high insurance premiums. Many people choose cars that limit their risk of theft. So if tires get routinely deflated on certain types of vehicles, some people may choose not to buy those vehicles.

I don't know if that will be the case, and it would clearly require a long term campaign, but it's not impossible to see.

What I do know is that this has brought the issue forward as a talking point that I don't think we've seen before. There are certainly eco topic blogs and newspapers which have discussed how much SUVs have harmed our environment. But it's been fairly limited coverage. For example, AFAIK the record has never reported on it. Now they have.

Like I said, 5 years ago, I would have opposed such a thing, I'm not sure now. Honestly, we are out of time, and our leadership have made barely more than token changes. Yes, I'm happy to have the downtown cycling grid, but as far as GHG emissions go, or even transport policy...that is token. You can tell, because the region has not even considered changing their VMT modelling.

Again, the YouTube video I linked is a far more thoughtful and broad discussion of protest and direct action.

What I do know is that this is the direct and inevitable result of inaction on an existential issue by our government. And this is hardly the only issue we are seeing this on. I expect there is going to be increasing unrest over the next decade...probably future issues won't be easily solvable with a piece of equipment that all car owners should already have.
(07-19-2022, 09:29 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2022, 07:01 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]Just because there is method to it doesn’t mean it isn’t madness.

It’s pure vandalism. As far as I’m concerned it could be random and it would be no worse. Arguably not even as bad, because these people are pretending to have thought things through and arrived at a considered decision to participate in an action, when that action is really just criminal activity.

What next, break the windows of businesses of which we disapprove? There are a lot of SUV dealerships with some pretty nice windows…

You're welcome to disagree with direct action although, as I have done as late, I'd suggest you least try to understand the societal reasons why it is happening, and it's historical context, and it's historical record of effectiveness.

But to suggest that random behaviour is "better" is absurd on the face. You are suggesting that while the effect on the victims is identical, it is somehow worse BECAUSE those doing it want a better world, rather than a more chaotic one?

Yes, there has to be space for teenagers (stereotypically, but could be anybody) to do dumb, thoughtless things. People who do things out of a sense of moral certitude need to be held to a higher standard. I don’t mean the random prank is OK, of course, but once the perpetrators grow up and think about it a bit they’ll realize they shouldn’t have done it.

I do agree that trying to understand is always a good thing. But this will be ineffective and even counterproductive, for reasons that should be obvious. What would your reaction be if you came out to find your bike inoperable due to activism from people concerned about bicyclists speeding on the sidewalk?

Quote:Rosa Parks sitting on the bus was also a criminal act. It was also a planned protest. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Rosa Parks didn’t harm anybody. OK, some racists got butthurt (and some white guy didn’t get a seat that day), but that doesn’t count as harm. Having to deal with a flat tire for no good reason clearly does count as harm.

I think it’s also worth looking at what is being asked, and of whom: Rosa Parks wanted the buses to be desegregated. If the bus company desegregated, the demand would be met and the protest would end. What do these activists want, specifically, and of whom? Under precisely what circumstance should the so-called protest end? For all they know, every single one of their victims is already using bicycles for most trips and just gets out the old SUV once a week when needed.
(07-19-2022, 09:40 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe, or maybe not...historically there is a long history of direct action and even violent protests being effective. Whether this is an example, I do not know for sure, only time will tell.

Protests against “the man” can be effective. I’m skeptical that “protests” against random victims can be effective except to encourage an excessive response from law enforcement. The group “SUV owners” is not “the man”.

Although a lot of groups that people probably think are “the man” aren’t, in most contexts — landlords, grocers, gas station owners, ….
(07-19-2022, 02:05 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2022, 09:29 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]You're welcome to disagree with direct action although, as I have done as late, I'd suggest you least try to understand the societal reasons why it is happening, and it's historical context, and it's historical record of effectiveness.

But to suggest that random behaviour is "better" is absurd on the face. You are suggesting that while the effect on the victims is identical, it is somehow worse BECAUSE those doing it want a better world, rather than a more chaotic one?

Yes, there has to be space for teenagers (stereotypically, but could be anybody) to do dumb, thoughtless things. People who do things out of a sense of moral certitude need to be held to a higher standard. I don’t mean the random prank is OK, of course, but once the perpetrators grow up and think about it a bit they’ll realize they shouldn’t have done it.

I do agree that trying to understand is always a good thing. But this will be ineffective and even counterproductive, for reasons that should be obvious. What would your reaction be if you came out to find your bike inoperable due to activism from people concerned about bicyclists speeding on the sidewalk?

Quote:Rosa Parks sitting on the bus was also a criminal act. It was also a planned protest. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Rosa Parks didn’t harm anybody. OK, some racists got butthurt (and some white guy didn’t get a seat that day), but that doesn’t count as harm. Having to deal with a flat tire for no good reason clearly does count as harm.

I think it’s also worth looking at what is being asked, and of whom: Rosa Parks wanted the buses to be desegregated. If the bus company desegregated, the demand would be met and the protest would end. What do these activists want, specifically, and of whom? Under precisely what circumstance should the so-called protest end? For all they know, every single one of their victims is already using bicycles for most trips and just gets out the old SUV once a week when needed.

Rosa Parks temporarily took away the use of a bus seat from someone who was legally entitled to use it. It's EXACTLY the same harm that deflating a tire on a car does (temporarily taking away the use of something from it's legal owner). You might argue the scale is different, but it's clearly the same crime, and I'd argue both harms are extremely minor. 

These activists are very explicit about their asks, they want SUVs (unnecessarily large vehicles) restricted and regulated in the city.

I'm sorry but they wrote this on the notes they left on the cars, they have a website detailing their requests explicitly. This isn't a secret, it isn't hidden, it's VERY well advertised. If you don't know it, it's because you haven't bothered to look.

As to the first points, I still strongly disagree that random mischief is worse we can agree to disagree on that.

As for it's effectiveness or results. Neither of us can know the future. You are arguing it is obvious...and like I said, five years ago, I might have agreed with you...today, I know better than to assume I know. Direct action like this has a history of effectiveness, especially in cases where there is an existential threat. And given that politicians continue to ignore this situation, it's going to increase.

Something I did note on twitter...I don't think it applies here, because this is a conversation we are all having more or less in private, but on twitter, several prominent eco-folks have taken the time to independently call this behaviour out. Some, like Rob Deutschman I understand because he is running for office. But what it really tells me is that a lot of eco folks are eco second, and establishment first. I don't support this and I'm not participating in it, but I'm not going to take time and space to call it out. I don't have a better suggestion for what to do and if I did I'd be doing that rather than calling out those taking direct action. My goal is to limit climate change by any means, not preserve the establishment. Objecting to this does not further that goal.
(07-19-2022, 02:08 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2022, 09:40 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe, or maybe not...historically there is a long history of direct action and even violent protests being effective. Whether this is an example, I do not know for sure, only time will tell.

Protests against “the man” can be effective. I’m skeptical that “protests” against random victims can be effective except to encourage an excessive response from law enforcement. The group “SUV owners” is not “the man”.

Although a lot of groups that people probably think are “the man” aren’t, in most contexts — landlords, grocers, gas station owners, ….

I agree with this concept in principle. I certainly strongly disagree with the violence committed against the people of Ottawa. But everything in perspective. 

Would you feel this is better or worse than setting fire to a car dealership or a gas station? These are more "the man" than owners of SUVs...but they are also farther from the harm...drivers of SUVs are the ones who are driving SUVs.

FWIW...back to the Ottawa example...I would argue the harm perpetrated against the people of Ottawa is a dozen orders of magnitude larger than the harm perpetrated here...and it was committed against at least 3 orders of magnitude more people. Just to put the scale in perspective.
I'm not going to support this initiative, but I'm also going to tend to agree with dan in what I think he's saying. Demanding respectability for protests is a good way for the protests to be ignored (please go protest in your free speech zone) and the whole climate emergency is, in fact, an emergency. I think any effective protest has to make people uncomfortable in some way, no?