General Road and Highway Discussion

[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.