Grand River Transit

[tomh009]

I am arguing that even as a collective society, we are all responsible for the direction of society, therefore, we have collective intent.  I'll grant you this is a somewhat radical position to take, arguing that a society of people can have intent.

I would argue that "responsibility" is not the same thing as intent.

You are responsible for the upbringing and behaviour of your child (until he or she grows up). If he or she behaves badly, did you actually intend it?

Of course, this discussion has by now digressed rather far from the GRT.

[Coke6pk]

Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

You are likely less likely to be infected in a bar, because they are currently closed. Maybe if people can't wear masks on public transit, public transit should be closed.

Additionally, the for the bars, no one is forced to go into a bar to get to/from work and or appointments, so that is a clear apples vs. oranges comparison.

Coke

[danbrotherston]

Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

You are likely less likely to be infected in a bar, because they are currently closed.  Maybe if people can't wear masks on public transit, public transit should be closed.

Additionally, the for the bars, no one is forced to go into a bar to get to/from work and or appointments, so that is a clear apples vs. oranges comparison.

Coke

The bars are not closed...contrary to popular opinion, there is no lockdown...the restrictions amount to a few hours shorter operation time.

And yes people are not "forced" to go into bars...which is why we should close bars, but not public transit. One is essential, the other is not.

As for people not wearing masks on public transit, I'm not sure what you mean, there are a tiny fraction of people who have a medical reason, but it seems most folks are simply choosing not too.

[ac3r]

Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

You are likely less likely to be infected in a bar, because they are currently closed.  Maybe if people can't wear masks on public transit, public transit should be closed.

Additionally, the for the bars, no one is forced to go into a bar to get to/from work and or appointments, so that is a clear apples vs. oranges comparison.

Coke

Honest question...did you think before sending this reply? It's a truly amazing take.

[Coke6pk]

You are likely less likely to be infected in a bar, because they are currently closed.  Maybe if people can't wear masks on public transit, public transit should be closed.

Additionally, the for the bars, no one is forced to go into a bar to get to/from work and or appointments, so that is a clear apples vs. oranges comparison.

Coke

Honest question...did you think before sending this reply? It's a truly amazing take.

Honest answer, yes.  Apparently my sarcasm doesn't translate in the written form.

No, public transit shouldn't be closed... however, those not wearing masks should not be riding.  If you have medical issues that prevent you from breathing thru a flimsy mask, good luck with the ventilator.

Coke

[KevinT]

Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.

"Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit

[danbrotherston]

Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.

"Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit

That is a great quote.

[jamincan]

Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.

"Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit

I get what the metaphor is trying to say, but the truth is that none of the snowflakes are responsible. They're snowflakes and ultimately follow the laws of gravity like everything else.

Going back to Dan's original point: "I'm not assuming anyone is evil....or at least, I am not suggesting any particular individual is evil. We as a society are perhaps evil, we are all complicit and all guilty in whatever outcomes we have." I completely reject this outlook. Attributing blame to people collectively for society's ill is an entirely pointless endeavor. It's like blaming an avalanche on the snowflakes.

That's not to say that we should accept the status quo any more than we should throw our hands up when there is an unstable snowpack looming over a highway. To stretch the metaphor to the breaking point, it's to say that we can't stop an avalanche by expecting every snowflake to go against its nature and fall up instead of down. In the same way we also can't solve society's ills by expecting those around us to change their nature.

[danbrotherston]

"Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit

I get what the metaphor is trying to say, but the truth is that none of the snowflakes are responsible. They're snowflakes and ultimately follow the laws of gravity like everything else.

Going back to Dan's original point: "I'm not assuming anyone is evil....or at least, I am not suggesting any particular individual is evil. We as a society are perhaps evil, we are all complicit and all guilty in whatever outcomes we have." I completely reject this outlook. Attributing blame to people collectively for society's ill is an entirely pointless endeavor. It's like blaming an avalanche on the snowflakes.

That's not to say that we should accept the status quo any more than we should throw our hands up when there is an unstable snowpack looming over a highway. To stretch the metaphor to the breaking point, it's to say that we can't stop an avalanche by expecting every snowflake to go against its nature and fall up instead of down. In the same way we also can't solve society's ills by expecting those around us to change their nature.

Blaming specific individuals is scapegoating, and it's a way to avoid responsibility. 

But blaming society and pleading innocence is also scapegoating and avoids responsibility. 

Blaming everyone is a way to point out responsibility. I don't know how effective it is but I know the above two alternatives are definitely ineffective with most people. 

As you say, snowflakes are just objects following the laws of physics. But humans are complex, they are BOTH automatons following the laws of psychology and sociology AND ALSO independent self directed individuals capable of making and responsible for their own choices and contributions.

The question of how to create collective action is a difficult one, I don't think trying to make everyone feel responsible for our collective outcomes is entirely pointless. But I do agree it is not sufficient. They must also feel empowered to change those outcomes. 

I think we need a philosophy thread for this one now.

[Coke6pk]

Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.

"Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit

"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible"
Stanislaw Jerzy Lec - Polish Poet

very similar to:
"The single raindrop never feels responsible for the flood"
Douglas Adams

Coke

[KevinL]

One more for the pile:

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."

-J. Michael Stracznyski

[jeffster]

You are likely less likely to be infected in a bar, because they are currently closed.  Maybe if people can't wear masks on public transit, public transit should be closed.

Additionally, the for the bars, no one is forced to go into a bar to get to/from work and or appointments, so that is a clear apples vs. oranges comparison.

Coke

The bars are not closed...contrary to popular opinion, there is no lockdown...the restrictions amount to a few hours shorter operation time.

And yes people are not "forced" to go into bars...which is why we should close bars, but not public transit. One is essential, the other is not.

As for people not wearing masks on public transit, I'm not sure what you mean, there are a tiny fraction of people who have a medical reason, but it seems most folks are simply choosing not too.

Bars are limited to 10 guests, which essentially is a lockdown.

I don’t think transit is much of an issue right now, it seems a lot of people are avoiding using it.

[danbrotherston]

The bars are not closed...contrary to popular opinion, there is no lockdown...the restrictions amount to a few hours shorter operation time.

And yes people are not "forced" to go into bars...which is why we should close bars, but not public transit. One is essential, the other is not.

As for people not wearing masks on public transit, I'm not sure what you mean, there are a tiny fraction of people who have a medical reason, but it seems most folks are simply choosing not too.

Bars are limited to 10 guests, which essentially is a lockdown.

I don’t think transit is much of an issue right now, it seems a lot of people are avoiding using it.

I agree transit does not appear to be a major vector of transmission. I don't know any studies or data from here, but from other places, which are more transit dependent, including Asia and places which have detailed contact tracing, it wasn't a major vector. I suspect a combination of good ventilation and low activity/talking on transit vehicles.

That being said, transit numbers are definitely down, but not as much as you'd think, and with some very interesting but entirely expected patterns.  According to GRT:

Routes which service places like the University and Colleges which are now doing remote learning are down significantly, around half if I recall.

Routes which are mainly used to service jobs, like factories/stores which are usually used by people who a) cannot work from home and b) usually only use transit if they cannot afford a car, are down only a small amount.

Routes in the core, which service both people who can't afford a car, and bourgeois people like me who could drive but choose to take transit because I live in an area well served by transit have decreased ridership somewhere in between those two extremes.

In general, I think they're still seeing a significant fraction of usage, more than 70%. Certainly a decrease but it's not like the system is empty (as some regional councillors felt).

[Acitta]

Waterloo Region begins phasing out diesel buses this year

[danbrotherston]

Waterloo Region begins phasing out diesel buses this year

I remember it was not more than five or ten years ago that GRT decided to phase out buying hybrid buses because they didn't provide enough lifetime savings. At the time I said it was a poor decision. We could have been five or ten years ahead of the curve.

It is worth noting they are not even talking about the reduced air pollution and reduced noise pollution in this discussion. I mean, on one hand, it's because there are so many other clear benefits and limited space. On the other hand, it is because we think so little about these issues, which is frankly, a travesty, given air pollution and noise pollution have enormous impacts on human health and happiness.

And I'm not even discussing the improvement to ride quality which only affect bus passengers as opposed to everyone in the city.

I am however confused, how do hybrids save 20,000 dollars per year in fuel, when electric buses only save 21,000 dollars a year in fuel?