General Road and Highway Discussion

[dtkvictim]

If someone chooses to throw out a deflated tire instead of just reinflating it, that's on them. They aren't slashing tires, they've been very clear about this (even if certain media outlets have outright lied about it), it's hard to know if this even qualifies as vandalism.

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.

AFAIK, sitting on a flat for even a day can damage both the tire and rim. Some may be fine, but others will likely be thrown out or reinflated with structural damage. It's shocking that you can be so concerned about road violence and then say there is no (potential for) violence here. Properly inflated, structurally sound tires are critical for road safety and intentionally compromising them isn't much different than cutting the brake lines on a bike. Both can lead to a loss of control, though in the case of the SUV it's probably someone outside of the vehicle who is most at risk.

I agree direct action is coming. Probably even required. But I think it requires being honest about the level of property damage and violence (very mild here) in order to be effectively targeted and to maintain the goodwill of the people.

[ac3r]

Direction action is great and I fully support it, but what these people did is annoying. People might have an SUV for a specific reason. Maybe they have a large family/children? Maybe they run a contracting business and use their SUV as a business vehicle (like someone I know)? They'd be very disadvantaged because some clowns decided to go save the planet by deflating tires (lmao...as if that's going to do anything). It's ridiculous.

Direction action is very useful but it has to be focused in the right way. There needs to be a strategy. This just seems like it was some neckbeards from /r/fuckcars trying to act like revolutionaries. It does nothing to support their cause. Nobody who walked out in the morning to find their tires flat is going to say "ah, they're right, I will sell my vehicle and start biking" or whatever. The reaction is going to be a feeling of being upset, angry, annoyed and probably ready to kick some ass. How would all the cyclists or transit users feel if someone started deflating bike and bus tires, or putting piles of bricks and logs on MUTs? Or what if they went out and sabotaged the LRT like the Tarnac Nine did? I'm sure nobody would support that whether or not the "justification" for doing so had any merit.

Fuck cars indeed, but we need to fight them in a more sensible, intelligent and academic way and not pretending to be revolutionaries by deflating tires.

[danbrotherston]

If someone chooses to throw out a deflated tire instead of just reinflating it, that's on them. They aren't slashing tires, they've been very clear about this (even if certain media outlets have outright lied about it), it's hard to know if this even qualifies as vandalism.

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.

AFAIK, sitting on a flat for even a day can damage both the tire and rim. Some may be fine, but others will likely be thrown out or reinflated with structural damage. It's shocking that you can be so concerned about road violence and then say there is no (potential for) violence here. Properly inflated, structurally sound tires are critical for road safety and intentionally compromising them isn't much different than cutting the brake lines on a bike. Both can lead to a loss of control, though in the case of the SUV it's probably someone outside of the vehicle who is most at risk.

I agree direct action is coming. Probably even required. But I think it requires being honest about the level of property damage and violence (very mild here) in order to be effectively targeted and to maintain the goodwill of the people.

"Isn't much different than cutting the brake lines on a bike"...really?!

I've had many flat tires in my life, both on bikes and cars. Now, I've never had a break line cut.

But I find the suggestion that a flat tire is the same as cutting brake lines to be truly shocking.

A flat tire is a relatively common occurrence, one that any driver should be able to deal with (and yes, having and using roadside assistance is an acceptable--albeit slow--way of dealing with a flat tire). A cut (or failed) brake line is an entirely different level of risk.

Now...having a catastrophic tire failure while at high speeds has some risk of loss of control (although again, something that a competent driver in a properly loaded vehicle SHOULD be able to recover from) but this isn't that....this is a flat tire at rest, something I have found at my car literally a dozen times...thanks careless roofers. If you feel this is a major risk akin to having a brake line cut, well....the roofing profession needs to be regulated...or..whatever.

I agree we need to be honest about the level off damage and violence here but I think I'm far closer than you are to being so.

[danbrotherston]

Direction action is great and I fully support it, but what these people did is annoying. People might have an SUV for a specific reason. Maybe they have a large family/children? Maybe they run a contracting business and use their SUV as a business vehicle (like someone I know)? They'd be very disadvantaged because some clowns decided to go save the planet by deflating tires (lmao...as if that's going to do anything). It's ridiculous.

Direction action is very useful but it has to be focused in the right way. There needs to be a strategy. This just seems like it was some neckbeards from /r/fuckcars trying to act like revolutionaries. It does nothing to support their cause. Nobody who walked out in the morning to find their tires flat is going to say "ah, they're right, I will sell my vehicle and start biking" or whatever. The reaction is going to be a feeling of being upset, angry, annoyed and probably ready to kick some ass. How would all the cyclists or transit users feel if someone started deflating bike and bus tires, or putting piles of bricks and logs on MUTs? Or what if they went out and sabotaged the LRT like the Tarnac Nine did? I'm sure nobody would support that whether or not the "justification" for doing so had any merit.

Fuck cars indeed, but we need to fight them in a more sensible, intelligent and academic way and not pretending to be revolutionaries by deflating tires.

Ahh yes...and AGAIN we are comparing the non-destructive temporary disabling of SUVs with targeted violence against people.

We already know how cyclists will feel about an attempt to injure or kill cyclists...because we've already experienced it. There have been many cases of traps being laid for cyclists.

Direct action is annoying...at a minimum...that's the point of doing it. In fact...it's almost the definition of doing it. If you support direct action but don't support disrupting or annoying some people, businesses, governments...then...you don't support direct action.

Also, I'll be blunt here...those people driving excessively large vehicles into the city are the problem. Yes, the oil industry and auto industry are pushing them...but we are still buying them. The folks who argue something like the "the corporations are destroying the planet, so they should be punished, and I should get to keep driving my pickup into the city" are ... to put it nicely...giving themselves an excuse.

I'm not saying that targeting everyone driving an SUV is the right choice...but it is not an invalid or obviously misplaced choice. This isn't the same as the right wingers blaming immigrants for ... well ... pretty much all the things they get blamed for.

[ijmorlan]

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.

Touché!

[ijmorlan]

Fuck cars indeed, but we need to fight them in a more sensible, intelligent and academic way and not pretending to be revolutionaries by deflating tires.

Well said.

And I find it conspicuous that Dan still hasn’t answered my question about how he would feel if he found his bike inoperable in the morning.

[ijmorlan]

I'm not saying that targeting everyone driving an SUV is the right choice...but it is not an invalid or obviously misplaced choice. This isn't the same as the right wingers blaming immigrants for ... well ... pretty much all the things they get blamed for.

See, this is the disagreement. I find it to be an obviously invalid and obviously misplaced choice.

Install a bike rack in a parking space or something if you want to do direct action.

[danbrotherston]

Fuck cars indeed, but we need to fight them in a more sensible, intelligent and academic way and not pretending to be revolutionaries by deflating tires.

Well said.

And I find it conspicuous that Dan still hasn’t answered my question about how he would feel if he found his bike inoperable in the morning.

I'm sorry...was it a serious question?

I'd be annoyed...as I have been annoyed before, both by having my car and bike inoperable.

It was a minor inconvenience when I had to spend 10 minutes pumping up a tire on my car when I picked up a roofing nail before I could get to work...but ultimately, it would be less of an inconvenience because I wouldn't have to go get the tire fixed at a shop.

I'm not really sure what this answers for you...

[danbrotherston]

I'm not saying that targeting everyone driving an SUV is the right choice...but it is not an invalid or obviously misplaced choice. This isn't the same as the right wingers blaming immigrants for ... well ... pretty much all the things they get blamed for.

See, this is the disagreement. I find it to be an obviously invalid and obviously misplaced choice.

Install a bike rack in a parking space or something if you want to do direct action.

What about it do you find obviously invalid or misplaced?

SUVs are a problem...I know you agree. You believe that the tactic isn't effective?

Your suggestion is even less effective...in my opinion. Given our excess parking, it won't achieve anything...short or long term.

[dtkvictim]

AFAIK, sitting on a flat for even a day can damage both the tire and rim. Some may be fine, but others will likely be thrown out or reinflated with structural damage. It's shocking that you can be so concerned about road violence and then say there is no (potential for) violence here. Properly inflated, structurally sound tires are critical for road safety and intentionally compromising them isn't much different than cutting the brake lines on a bike. Both can lead to a loss of control, though in the case of the SUV it's probably someone outside of the vehicle who is most at risk.

I agree direct action is coming. Probably even required. But I think it requires being honest about the level of property damage and violence (very mild here) in order to be effectively targeted and to maintain the goodwill of the people.

"Isn't much different than cutting the brake lines on a bike"...really?!

I've had many flat tires in my life, both on bikes and cars. Now, I've never had a break line cut.

But I find the suggestion that a flat tire is the same as cutting brake lines to be truly shocking.

A flat tire is a relatively common occurrence, one that any driver should be able to deal with (and yes, having and using roadside assistance is an acceptable--albeit slow--way of dealing with a flat tire). A cut (or failed) brake line is an entirely different level of risk.

Now...having a catastrophic tire failure while at high speeds has some risk of loss of control (although again, something that a competent driver in a properly loaded vehicle SHOULD be able to recover from) but this isn't that....this is a flat tire at rest, something I have found at my car literally a dozen times...thanks careless roofers. If you feel this is a major risk akin to having a brake line cut, well....the roofing profession needs to be regulated...or..whatever.

I agree we need to be honest about the level off damage and violence here but I think I'm far closer than you are to being so.

You are skipping over the part where tires sitting deflated does damage them over time. I don't think this is nearly as bad as cutting a brake line, but I would consider it to be in the same class of action even if it's not nearly as severe.

The fact that the average person neglects proper inspection and maintenance of their vehicles doesn't make this less bad, it makes it even worse. You can just as easily claim that cutting brake lines isn't dangerous, because every cyclist should be checking them before beginning a ride.

Maybe I'm over-estimating the risk of damage and violence (I don't think so, but I haven't really expressed that here), but I'd prefer to be cautious than to outright deny it. At the end of the day, whether it's cut brake lines or tire failure leading to loss of control, I'm the most vulnerable as a pedestrian and cyclist.

[danbrotherston]

"Isn't much different than cutting the brake lines on a bike"...really?!

I've had many flat tires in my life, both on bikes and cars. Now, I've never had a break line cut.

But I find the suggestion that a flat tire is the same as cutting brake lines to be truly shocking.

A flat tire is a relatively common occurrence, one that any driver should be able to deal with (and yes, having and using roadside assistance is an acceptable--albeit slow--way of dealing with a flat tire). A cut (or failed) brake line is an entirely different level of risk.

Now...having a catastrophic tire failure while at high speeds has some risk of loss of control (although again, something that a competent driver in a properly loaded vehicle SHOULD be able to recover from) but this isn't that....this is a flat tire at rest, something I have found at my car literally a dozen times...thanks careless roofers. If you feel this is a major risk akin to having a brake line cut, well....the roofing profession needs to be regulated...or..whatever.

I agree we need to be honest about the level off damage and violence here but I think I'm far closer than you are to being so.

You are skipping over the part where tires sitting deflated does damage them over time. I don't think this is nearly as bad as cutting a brake line, but I would consider it to be in the same class of action even if it's not nearly as severe.

The fact that the average person neglects proper inspection and maintenance of their vehicles doesn't make this less bad, it makes it even worse. You can just as easily claim that cutting brake lines isn't dangerous, because every cyclist should be checking them before beginning a ride.

Maybe I'm over-estimating the risk of damage and violence (I don't think so, but I haven't really expressed that here), but I'd prefer to be cautious than to outright deny it. At the end of the day, whether it's cut brake lines or tire failure leading to loss of control, I'm the most vulnerable as a pedestrian and cyclist.

I appreciate you walking back "it isn't much different from cutting a break line".

I do agree, that damage isn't impossible. A person may get in and drive their car without noticing a flat and that could cause damage (I don't think sitting deflated for a night will cause a tire to be damaged...otherwise I got luck literally 12 times). But I don't call that violence...property damage...sure, but it doesn't rise to the case of violence for me.

Like I said, I'm not taking a position on this...but I do think it's valuable to put it in context. Those who are calling for people to be beaten...don't have perspective on this. That level of violence is about the statement being made, not the actual harm.

[ijmorlan]

Well said.

And I find it conspicuous that Dan still hasn’t answered my question about how he would feel if he found his bike inoperable in the morning.

I'm sorry...was it a serious question?

I'd be annoyed...as I have been annoyed before, both by having my car and bike inoperable.

It was a minor inconvenience when I had to spend 10 minutes pumping up a tire on my car when I picked up a roofing nail before I could get to work...but ultimately, it would be less of an inconvenience because I wouldn't have to go get the tire fixed at a shop.

I'm not really sure what this answers for you...

Of course it’s a serious question. You seem to be saying that it is believable that one of those SUV owners might find their property incapacitated and think to themselves something like, ”hmmm, maybe I should get rid of this vehicle; I’m glad those people were so generous as to give me that suggestion”. But in order to believe this, we have to believe that if you found your bike similarly incapacitated you would think similarly kind thoughts about the people who did it.

Now I’m not you, but I’m having trouble believing that you would consider, even for a second, that you were the problem in that situation. So why would you expect those SUV owners to consider the same possibility?

Also, I have in mind a specific scenario for the anti-bike people, where they are protesting bicyclists on sidewalks driving carelessly and harming pedestrians. I don’t believe we have an epidemic of this problem, but it’s certainly possible that it could be an actual problem in some times and places. In this scenario, I’m not just reversing the damage from SUVs to bicycles: I’m keeping the feature that the activists actually do have a point. In the real situation, it’s true that we have too many SUVs and that some of them are driven inappropriately and that all of them are subsidized (due to the absence of congestion charging and a sufficient carbon tax). In the scenario, we really do have some bikes being driven carelessly on the sidewalk.

But in both cases, individual vehicle operators are not necessarily responsible for the problem. An SUV owner could have limited mobility and need the higher seat in order to get in and out of their vehicle, or could have inherited an old vehicle and decided to use it once a week for trips that really need a vehicle, driving it carefully and appropriately, using public transit for other trips. A bike owner could be one who never causes trouble for pedestrians. So targetting them does nothing to advance the cause but instead just spreads anger and resentment.

[ijmorlan]

See, this is the disagreement. I find it to be an obviously invalid and obviously misplaced choice.

Install a bike rack in a parking space or something if you want to do direct action.

What about it do you find obviously invalid or misplaced?

SUVs are a problem...I know you agree. You believe that the tactic isn't effective?

Your suggestion is even less effective...in my opinion. Given our excess parking, it won't achieve anything...short or long term.

Ineffective, and probably mis-targeted, at least as to some of its victims, as I mentioned in my other reply. Randomly harming other members of society isn’t a good way of doing this (or anything else).

My suggestion is just an off-the-cuff example of something you could do which is probably illegal but which doesn’t cause direct harm to another. There are probably lots of better ideas for protests which would do a better job of spreading the message.

[danbrotherston]

I'm sorry...was it a serious question?

I'd be annoyed...as I have been annoyed before, both by having my car and bike inoperable.

It was a minor inconvenience when I had to spend 10 minutes pumping up a tire on my car when I picked up a roofing nail before I could get to work...but ultimately, it would be less of an inconvenience because I wouldn't have to go get the tire fixed at a shop.

I'm not really sure what this answers for you...

Of course it’s a serious question. You seem to be saying that it is believable that one of those SUV owners might find their property incapacitated and think to themselves something like, ”hmmm, maybe I should get rid of this vehicle; I’m glad those people were so generous as to give me that suggestion”. But in order to believe this, we have to believe that if you found your bike similarly incapacitated you would think similarly kind thoughts about the people who did it.

Now I’m not you, but I’m having trouble believing that you would consider, even for a second, that you were the problem in that situation. So why would you expect those SUV owners to consider the same possibility?

I'm not going to argue that I am typical, but if you're asking how I'd feel about the people involved, I'd be angry, but I'm also aware of the broader context it happens in.

I have been the victim of bike theft in a couple of instances. I was and am angry about it and I do blame those who took my bikes. But I am also aware of the broader context around crime and poverty in our city and I am equally angry about those things. I am also cognizant of what harms I actually suffered, which even in the case of theft, weren't that serious...I was unharmed and I have insurance which covered the damages. I suffered some higher premiums and some annoying paperwork. But I am also coming home to a warm house every night, so context.

Also, I have in mind a specific scenario for the anti-bike people, where they are protesting bicyclists on sidewalks driving carelessly and harming pedestrians. I don’t believe we have an epidemic of this problem, but it’s certainly possible that it could be an actual problem in some times and places. In this scenario, I’m not just reversing the damage from SUVs to bicycles: I’m keeping the feature that the activists actually do have a point. In the real situation, it’s true that we have too many SUVs and that some of them are driven inappropriately and that all of them are subsidized (due to the absence of congestion charging and a sufficient carbon tax). In the scenario, we really do have some bikes being driven carelessly on the sidewalk.

But in both cases, individual vehicle operators are not necessarily responsible for the problem. An SUV owner could have limited mobility and need the higher seat in order to get in and out of their vehicle, or could have inherited an old vehicle and decided to use it once a week for trips that really need a vehicle, driving it carefully and appropriately, using public transit for other trips. A bike owner could be one who never causes trouble for pedestrians. So targetting them does nothing to advance the cause but instead just spreads anger and resentment.

So, two things about this.

1. You are describing collateral damage. 99% of SUV owners chose their vehicles, not out of "necessity" (we'll come back to that) but out of (advertisement influenced) preference and drive their vehicles on a regular basis.

If the US military had 1% collateral damage, I think they'd be the most careful military in history. And their collateral damage instead of annoying a few people, kills women, children, families, etc.

So yes, there could be some collateral damage, but I don't think that's a particularly compelling argument. It really is a tiny edge case for an extremely mild harm. I'm sure, everyone will justify themselves, that doesn't make those justifications legitimate.

Which brings me to 2. Almost everything you describe isn't a real reason (to me) to own and drive an SUV in the city. Someone who just drives a few times, still drives an SUV in the city. And people with limited mobility got around before SUVs more, people with limited mobility are more likely to be harmed by people in large vehicles. So I find that example particularly frustrating.

[danbrotherston]

What about it do you find obviously invalid or misplaced?

SUVs are a problem...I know you agree. You believe that the tactic isn't effective?

Your suggestion is even less effective...in my opinion. Given our excess parking, it won't achieve anything...short or long term.

Ineffective, and probably mis-targeted, at least as to some of its victims, as I mentioned in my other reply. Randomly harming other members of society isn’t a good way of doing this (or anything else).

My suggestion is just an off-the-cuff example of something you could do which is probably illegal but which doesn’t cause direct harm to another. There are probably lots of better ideas for protests which would do a better job of spreading the message.

It's not random, it's targeted, and precisely so--the issue activists have chosen to target is SUVs and they targeted SUVs specifically.

I as I explained, I think that it's "miss-targeted" as much as you think, but I also don't think that the existence of collateral damage alone is enough, it should be considered in scope.

Edit: *less "miss-targeted"

I think the only question of "mis-targeting" I see is whether targeting users of SUVs is valid, rather than manufacturers, advertisers, fuel makers, etc. And I think it is. For me, the question is effectiveness, which is affected by many factors.

As for protesting, we've been doing that for decades...and there has been no progress. I frankly don't believe non-violent passive protest to be effective here. I understand why people would choose direct action and I support the concept in general at this point, although I'm not sure about this particular instance.

(Also, your example does have a cost, whomever's parking space that is will need to come remove the bike rack. That's going to cost money. Just look at the red paint on the statue in the park that we keep spending ungodly amounts of money to clean--which is why your example is another (mild) form of direct action.)