5 ms·

> Now is a good time for urban planners and authorities in the country to look for ways to promote and enable cycling. Unfortunately, urban planners and author

> Now is a good time for urban planners and authorities in the country to look for ways to promote and enable cycling. Unfortunately, urban planners and authorities is not how you promote cycling. This is how you promote cycling [0]. You rebel. [0] https://file.ejatlas.org/img/Conflict/2797/stop_de_kindermoord_lay_down.png.jpg https://file.ejatlas.org/img/Conflict/2797/stop_de_kindermoo...

mistrial9 6y ago
neither protest nor anti-protest; someone once told me, if the drivers of the cars -- have experienced being a cyclist -- then they will treat you with some deference; if the drivers of the cars -- have not experienced being a cyclist -- then they find it easier to dismiss, endanger and rage against you. Decades of urban cycling in the USA have shown all angles of this.
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  Isn't that the case for literally everyone?
btrettel 6y ago
As a transportation cyclist for over a decade, I never liked the disruptive activities some cycling activists do. I'm not convinced that they're effective at anything other than angering drivers.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Not angering drivers hasn't worked at all, bike infrastructure has become worse over time. On the other hand, angering drivers did work in Netherlands.
  - btrettel 6y ago
    To be clear, I'm not opposed to angering drivers period, just certain activities which accomplish nothing other than angering drivers. For example, I will often briefly take the lane if it is the safest option for me or legally required (e.g., making a turn). Yes, many drivers hate this but the benefits seem clear to me, and their anger really is misplaced here. I don't know much about the history of cycling in the Netherlands. Where can I read about how angering drivers helped there?
    - adrianN 6y ago
      I found this video pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQk0O09gP4g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQk0O09gP4g
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    I think saying it hasn't worked is misleading. It has worked overall, it just hasn't worked for your preference. Most people prefer driving in the US. That's the preference of the constituency and it must be respected to some extent. Disrupting society because you didn't get your way doesn't seem compatible with accommodating a diversity of perspectives and the Democratic process. Put another way, how would you feel if car drivers rebel and park their cars across all the bike lanes?
    - adrianN 6y ago
      At some point the majority was in favor of slavery and against women's suffrage. I don't think that's a very good argument. The majority is often wrong, especially if the social system or the infrastructure around them is wrong. Btw, car drivers already park their cars across all the bike lanes, there is no need for a hypothetical.
      - throwawaysea 6y ago
        > At some point the majority was in favor of slavery and against women's suffrage. I don't think that's a very good argument. The majority is often wrong, especially if the social system or the infrastructure around them is wrong. So change opinion based on legal protest and organization. Blocking infrastructure that others rely on is militancy. And let's get real - this is cycling we're talking about, not slavery. To compare the two is to downplay what slavery actually entails (brutal violence, theft of civil liberties). > Btw, car drivers already park their cars across all the bike lanes, there is no need for a hypothetical. A very narrow minority does this, and usually it is out of ignorance, not malice.
        btrettel 6y ago
        > A very narrow minority does this, and usually it is out of ignorance, not malice. Some of the worst offenders, delivery truck drivers, tend to know that parking in the bike lane is illegal. They tend to not care about cyclists, which is different from ignorance or malice.
        6y ago
  - trynewideas 6y ago
    But that's the point — just because a tactic worked in some societies, does not mean it will work in all of them. In the Netherlands these disruptions effected policy change. In the US disruptive protests result in police brutality, protestors getting run over, and then public support for policies restricting disruptive protests. When policies get implemented in the US, it's through corruption — including policies we'd agree are good, like bike-friendly policies being pushed through municipal governments by major corporations who want them for their employees, so they get implemented where it benefits them and not where it benefits marginalized communities who don't work for them. As long as there's enough money pumped into a policy, no amount of disruption will affect it in the US. Disruptive actions _that don't target who's funding the policies_ won't accomplish anything here, no matter how effective they were there. So that's why people say "disrupting commutes won't work" here. The people commuting aren't funding these policies; they could all be voters and change out the entire city government and the same money will just pump through different people, and policies won't change, and the next time a disruptive protest happens the public turns against them because what did it accomplish last time? Meanwhile, the people who do fund policy are flying over them or riding past them in private or restricted lanes that they pushed through municipal government, looking over at the protests, maybe even cheering them on.
    - JAlexoid 6y ago
      It definitely works in US. There are countless cases where people have annoyed a group of people to sway the majority. (Do you think that LGBT got it's freedoms by not annoying anyone?) Just like public debates between politicians, these protests don't have to get the people getting annoyed on the side of the protesters. It's about getting attention and convincing others. If I stand and block the road for an ICE worker getting to the parking lot and he tries to drive over me - I'm getting more sympathy and exposure for annoying one ICE employee.
- filoleg 6y ago
  Somewhat off-topic, but tangentially related: I feel like it is similar to all other kinds of disruptive protesters blocking the roads for people who are just trying to get to/from work No matter the cause, blocking someone’s commute and making them waste time is not really going to convince them to be on your side, unless they were already on it. So you are essentially alienating the people in the middle and in the opposition to your cause, while not adding anything extra to those already on your side (+the possibility of some of those people defecting to the opposition, after being inconvenienced enough).
  - btrettel 6y ago
    Exactly. I'm not opposed to demanding things. I just don't see particularly disruptive protests as effective at realizing those demands. As you point out, these protests might even be counterproductive. If all they're doing is blocking the road as is the case in the photo I was responding to, that's not likely to help. That's screaming into the ether. It might make them feel better but it's not likely to solve the root cause of their problems. I think a lot of activism is more about making the activists feel better than actually changing the world.
  - voqv 6y ago
    Usually the counterargument in that case is that no movement got what it wants by asking nicely.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      I'm prepared to accept that experienced activists probably understand what's effective better than I do, but I've never understood how this actually works in the case of doing very annoying stuff like blocking streets. sure, it gets people's attention, but if they don't already care, why would you expect their solution to be "right this injustice" rather than "get the police to clear these people out of my way"?
    - filoleg 6y ago
      Sure, they are welcome to ask for things non-nicely, but not in ways that majorly inconveniences people who are not related whatsoever to the issue they are protesting. You are trying to protest corruption of your local city council by gathering outside of the building and yelling loudly? I will support you, maybe even join you, if I feel strongly enough about the issue. You protest the same thing by blocking off random highway ramps to any traffic (which could potentially affect emergency services), inconveniencing random people who have nothing to do with the issue? Yeah, you lost my sympathy and support, and very likely gave some ammo to those trying to derail your cause and those on the fence.
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  Getting people agitated works. It's true for pretty much anything. You will never get any rights/freedoms if you don't demand. No freedom/right has ever been granted by the grace of the people in power. I've seen it first hand in LGBT rights over the last 20 years. Angering a small part of the population exposed their alien nature to the majority, so the majority of people pick the "nicer side".
- steelframe 6y ago
  Nothing will get done until a critical mass (see what I did there?) of the population realizes that something needs to be done. That won't happen until people perceive that they are personally inconvenienced often enough. Do you advocate against funding for safe and effective cycling infrastructure? Okay then. I'm in the infrastructure you've provided me, and you get to go my pace.

mistrial9 6y ago

neither protest nor anti-protest; someone once told me, if the drivers of the cars -- have experienced being a cyclist -- then they will treat you with some deference; if the drivers of the cars -- have not experienced being a cyclist -- then they find it easier to dismiss, endanger and rage against you. Decades of urban cycling in the USA have shown all angles of this.

JAlexoid 6y ago
Isn't that the case for literally everyone?

btrettel 6y ago

As a transportation cyclist for over a decade, I never liked the disruptive activities some cycling activists do. I'm not convinced that they're effective at anything other than angering drivers.

adrianN 6y ago
Not angering drivers hasn't worked at all, bike infrastructure has become worse over time. On the other hand, angering drivers did work in Netherlands.
- btrettel 6y ago
  To be clear, I'm not opposed to angering drivers period, just certain activities which accomplish nothing other than angering drivers. For example, I will often briefly take the lane if it is the safest option for me or legally required (e.g., making a turn). Yes, many drivers hate this but the benefits seem clear to me, and their anger really is misplaced here. I don't know much about the history of cycling in the Netherlands. Where can I read about how angering drivers helped there?
  - adrianN 6y ago
    I found this video pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQk0O09gP4g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQk0O09gP4g
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I think saying it hasn't worked is misleading. It has worked overall, it just hasn't worked for your preference. Most people prefer driving in the US. That's the preference of the constituency and it must be respected to some extent. Disrupting society because you didn't get your way doesn't seem compatible with accommodating a diversity of perspectives and the Democratic process. Put another way, how would you feel if car drivers rebel and park their cars across all the bike lanes?
  - adrianN 6y ago
    At some point the majority was in favor of slavery and against women's suffrage. I don't think that's a very good argument. The majority is often wrong, especially if the social system or the infrastructure around them is wrong. Btw, car drivers already park their cars across all the bike lanes, there is no need for a hypothetical.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      > At some point the majority was in favor of slavery and against women's suffrage. I don't think that's a very good argument. The majority is often wrong, especially if the social system or the infrastructure around them is wrong. So change opinion based on legal protest and organization. Blocking infrastructure that others rely on is militancy. And let's get real - this is cycling we're talking about, not slavery. To compare the two is to downplay what slavery actually entails (brutal violence, theft of civil liberties). > Btw, car drivers already park their cars across all the bike lanes, there is no need for a hypothetical. A very narrow minority does this, and usually it is out of ignorance, not malice.
      - btrettel 6y ago
        > A very narrow minority does this, and usually it is out of ignorance, not malice. Some of the worst offenders, delivery truck drivers, tend to know that parking in the bike lane is illegal. They tend to not care about cyclists, which is different from ignorance or malice.
      - 6y ago
- trynewideas 6y ago
  But that's the point — just because a tactic worked in some societies, does not mean it will work in all of them. In the Netherlands these disruptions effected policy change. In the US disruptive protests result in police brutality, protestors getting run over, and then public support for policies restricting disruptive protests. When policies get implemented in the US, it's through corruption — including policies we'd agree are good, like bike-friendly policies being pushed through municipal governments by major corporations who want them for their employees, so they get implemented where it benefits them and not where it benefits marginalized communities who don't work for them. As long as there's enough money pumped into a policy, no amount of disruption will affect it in the US. Disruptive actions _that don't target who's funding the policies_ won't accomplish anything here, no matter how effective they were there. So that's why people say "disrupting commutes won't work" here. The people commuting aren't funding these policies; they could all be voters and change out the entire city government and the same money will just pump through different people, and policies won't change, and the next time a disruptive protest happens the public turns against them because what did it accomplish last time? Meanwhile, the people who do fund policy are flying over them or riding past them in private or restricted lanes that they pushed through municipal government, looking over at the protests, maybe even cheering them on.
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    It definitely works in US. There are countless cases where people have annoyed a group of people to sway the majority. (Do you think that LGBT got it's freedoms by not annoying anyone?) Just like public debates between politicians, these protests don't have to get the people getting annoyed on the side of the protesters. It's about getting attention and convincing others. If I stand and block the road for an ICE worker getting to the parking lot and he tries to drive over me - I'm getting more sympathy and exposure for annoying one ICE employee.
filoleg 6y ago
Somewhat off-topic, but tangentially related: I feel like it is similar to all other kinds of disruptive protesters blocking the roads for people who are just trying to get to/from work No matter the cause, blocking someone’s commute and making them waste time is not really going to convince them to be on your side, unless they were already on it. So you are essentially alienating the people in the middle and in the opposition to your cause, while not adding anything extra to those already on your side (+the possibility of some of those people defecting to the opposition, after being inconvenienced enough).
- btrettel 6y ago
  Exactly. I'm not opposed to demanding things. I just don't see particularly disruptive protests as effective at realizing those demands. As you point out, these protests might even be counterproductive. If all they're doing is blocking the road as is the case in the photo I was responding to, that's not likely to help. That's screaming into the ether. It might make them feel better but it's not likely to solve the root cause of their problems. I think a lot of activism is more about making the activists feel better than actually changing the world.
- voqv 6y ago
  Usually the counterargument in that case is that no movement got what it wants by asking nicely.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    I'm prepared to accept that experienced activists probably understand what's effective better than I do, but I've never understood how this actually works in the case of doing very annoying stuff like blocking streets. sure, it gets people's attention, but if they don't already care, why would you expect their solution to be "right this injustice" rather than "get the police to clear these people out of my way"?
  - filoleg 6y ago
    Sure, they are welcome to ask for things non-nicely, but not in ways that majorly inconveniences people who are not related whatsoever to the issue they are protesting. You are trying to protest corruption of your local city council by gathering outside of the building and yelling loudly? I will support you, maybe even join you, if I feel strongly enough about the issue. You protest the same thing by blocking off random highway ramps to any traffic (which could potentially affect emergency services), inconveniencing random people who have nothing to do with the issue? Yeah, you lost my sympathy and support, and very likely gave some ammo to those trying to derail your cause and those on the fence.
JAlexoid 6y ago
Getting people agitated works. It's true for pretty much anything. You will never get any rights/freedoms if you don't demand. No freedom/right has ever been granted by the grace of the people in power. I've seen it first hand in LGBT rights over the last 20 years. Angering a small part of the population exposed their alien nature to the majority, so the majority of people pick the "nicer side".
steelframe 6y ago
Nothing will get done until a critical mass (see what I did there?) of the population realizes that something needs to be done. That won't happen until people perceive that they are personally inconvenienced often enough. Do you advocate against funding for safe and effective cycling infrastructure? Okay then. I'm in the infrastructure you've provided me, and you get to go my pace.