General Road and Highway Discussion

[danbrotherston]

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?

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.