This is in response to a blog post written by one Michael Fagan (his words in green), who apparently wasn’t a fan of my letter to the editor in the Taipei Times. Although his blog post was peppered with positive feedback about the cause, “The proposition itself is as sensible as it is simple,” he wasn’t satisfied with the language I used in the letter.
I used to word “campaign” to describe the actions I’m taking (which largely consist of a website, Facebook fan page and a Facebook event) towards reaching an Idle-Free Taipei.
Fagan’s interpretation of the word “campaign” stirred up thoughts of a “military metaphor,” as he went on to say that “that’s distinctly uncivil.”
While the dictionary does include a definition specifically for a military campaign, I was aiming more for the definition of “an organized course of action to achieve a particular goal.”
While the dictionary does include a definition specifically for a military campaign, I was aiming more for the definition of “an organized course of action to achieve a particular goal.”
Stuck on the fact that I am trying to impose my "opinions" that pollution is bad for the environment, Fagan defends the priorities and prerogatives of the average Taipei commuter;
“I don't care that you think other people should use public transport rather than their scooters - what ought to be made salient to you Fleckenstein, is the impertinence of your criticism: you don't get to set other people's priorities for them. Only they get to do that.”
Well, Fagan, I never said anyone should use public transportation, as it would be hypocritical coming from a scooter driver. As for the impertinence of my criticism, I’m not actually sure where I was criticizing anyone or anything besides toxic fumes in my lungs. However, I do agree on the point that people get to set their own priorities. Sometimes people are either misinformed, or not informed at all, which is why I started Idle-Free Taipei in the first place; to inform people about the effects of scooter idling.
Of course, I can’t decide whether or not they decided to support the cause. Like Fagan so aptly pointed out, “only they get to do that.”
In order to show that I wasn’t making any claims to be the first with the Idle-Free idea, nor do I consider myself to be innovative, I pointed out that the idea had already been publicly discussed prior to the created of Idle-Free Taipei.
In order to show that decreasing unnecessary idling is a real issue, I brought up how it was suggested that it might one day become a law. Apparently this was not a good fact to point out, as the mere mentioning of the word “law” sent Fagan into a “fuck the po-leese” fit, causing him to write this comment on my blog,
“calling for it to be made into another goddamn law for the traffic cops to fine the proles with is not on.”
Again, the only reason I mentioned the prospect of a law was to let people know that this is a real issue that needs to be handled, not just something I made up. If I wanted it to be a law, I would have spoken to the government, not created a Facebook fan page.
Also in my letter, I included anecdotes about my experiences with idling in Taipei. I pointed out that the cumulative stoppage for scooters can be up to, and even more than 80 minutes.", to bring to the readers’ attention that 90 seconds actually means 80 minutes of idling.
I continued with the results of my own personal findings with my own scooter, showing the average stops per kilometer, the average wait time per stop, which also gives the average waiting time per kilometer. He was confused about my “total commute time” math, which only says that on average, 35% of my total commute time was spent at a red light (for example, if it takes me 10 minutes to get from A to B, 3.5 minutes of that will be spent not moving at all).
To answer his question, “but total commute time for whom? Is this supposed to be an average for all of Taipei's scooter drivers?” No, it’s not, and I never claimed it was. I actually said later in the letter “if this is any indication of other scooters…”
Due to Taipei Times’ 500 word limit in their letters to the editor, I chose not to include that my stats were taken between the hours of 7:00-9:00 AM, and 7:00-9:00 PM, on almost every major road in Taipei east of, and including, Jianguo Rd. Again, no, it’s not supposed to be for all of Taipei’s scooter drivers, but after over 100 kilometers of driving and taking notes, I felt that my averages could be, at the very least, relevant or interesting to many people.
Although he seemed to agree with the overall idea of Idle-Free Taipei, (he imagines that “with some imagination and application of effort, this could be a "mission actually possible"”), Fagan continued to try to pick apart my letter.
At one point, I think he actually ran out of negative things to say, so he (maybe sarcastically?) stooped to nit-picking about my usage of the word “obscene,” (“…scooter commuters are burning an obscene amount of fuel…”). Apparently to Mr. Fagan, commuters burning more than 1000 liters of fuel while travelling a distance of 0 kilometers is “ their bit to feed the plants with nutritious C02...”
Mr. Michael Fagan, I have nothing else to say other than to thank you for the publicity. I have the utmost faith that most people are slightly less pessimistic and less critical than you, and that after having read my letter to the Taipei Times, most people will not feel like I am trying to impose martial law, spray tear gas, or throw idlers in prison.
You have most definitely taken a well-intentioned fight (sorry for the strong word) against pollution and turned it into something which you refer to as “Statist terms.” In fact, the “civic association [sic]” terms you suggested I use is the core idea behind the word-of-mouth approach that has currently reached over 1000 people already. Civil Association methods are, indeed, much more powerful.
P.S. I think you need to look up the definition of the word “irony”.
“…creating a new law would be an irony - attempting to tackle an environmental externality by creating political externalities.”
Again, I don’t advocate an “anti-idling” law, but what’s wrong with/ironic about laws intended to solve environmental issues? Are you saying that government controlled emissions standards are ironic?
P.P.S. Does this comment seem sexist to anyone else?
“While they're at it, they could try to promote better vehicle maintenance - especially among women.”
Comments to Michael Fagan’s post:
“That letter in the TT set me a little bit on edge, too, Mr. Fagan. If it weren't for my scooter, I wouldn't be able to get to work. I live in Hsinchu, there is no MRT… Range, at range.wordpress.com, for example, commutes all the time. It would be prohibitive for him to take the MRT to all his jobs and his school. It makes sense to me that people commute on their scooters. ,” Thoth Harris
Unfortunately you only read Mr. Fagan’s post, and not anything that has to do with what “Idle-Free Taipei” is about. I drive a scooter. I also don’t want to stop driving my scooter. I only want to turn it off at red lights to stop burning fuel when I don’t need to. Check out the website! J www.Idle-FreeTaipei.com
“I was always led to believe that starting an engine required a bit more fuel than just letting it idle. You'll also be wearing out your starter, battery and engine faster IIRC…. It's just another greenie's idea to eventually get rid of scooters. " - Okami
The operative phrase in your comment is “led to believe,” and the goal of “Idle-Free Taipei” is to let you know that what you’ve been led to believe is wrong. Idling over 10-20 seconds (every scooter is different) is worse on your scooter than starting the engine. Also, I don’t mind you calling me a “greenie,” but I think you also forgot to click the Idle-Free Taipei link and see that I’m not trying to get rid of scooters. I love my scooter, but I don’t want to burn fuel when I don’t need to. Check out the website! J www.Idle-FreeTaipei.com
“I turn the engine off when I'm going to be stuck at a red light for more than 50 seconds (there are timers on almost all the lights in Taipei). I really wish others would do the same; there are intersections in Taipei where you wish you could hold your breath for the duration because breathing is so incredibly unpleasant.” –Steve
Steve, you’d be delighted to know that Idle-Free Taipei is trying to grant your wish that “others would do the same.” In fact, we advocate turning your scooter off if you are stopped for longer than 10-20 seconds. Every second counts!
6 comments:
{Two part comment...}
***
"As for the impertinence of my criticism, I’m not actually sure where I was criticizing anyone or anything besides toxic fumes in my lungs."
Let me help you with that - here's the relevant passage: "I have recently started a campaign directed at those who use their scooters to commute and seemingly will do so forever, regardless of improvements and expansions made to public transportation."
Your point was made by way of implication from the emboldened clause above.
"However, I do agree on the point that people get to set their own priorities."
Good, and in which case, law is not strictly relevant to your argument...
"In order to show that decreasing unnecessary idling is a real issue, I brought up how it was suggested that it might one day become a law."
... Is that how you typically distinguish "real" issues from those that are somehow not real: by enquiring as to whether a law has been passed or not? Of course not - so why presume other people need that reference point in order to draw the distinction? The trope is not only unnecessary to making what is otherwise a good argument, but it renders a cynical inflection upon the morality of that argument.
"...the mere mentioning of the word “law” sent Fagan into a “fuck the po-leese” fit..."
Or so you wrongly suppose. I made my remarks in measured contempt for the idea, not in a fit of rage.
"...not just something I made up."
Nobody in their right mind who has ever spent time in Taipei would imagine you had just "made it up".
....
***
"If I wanted it to be a law, I would have spoken to the government, not created a Facebook fan page."
Had you spoken to a Taipei city councillor, my bet is you'd most likely have been ignored. A facebook "campaign" is probably one of the most likely ways to induce political pressure for a new law - not that I'm accusing you of setting up the Facebook page for that purpose.
"...no, it’s not supposed to be for all of Taipei’s scooter drivers, but after over 100 kilometers of driving and taking notes, I felt that my averages could be, at the very least, relevant or interesting to many people."
Then that's fine then - the stats were mentioned without sufficient context to be sure about that. I understand that the letter limit is 500 words, but perhaps you could have phrased it more clearly.
"...so he (maybe sarcastically?) stooped to nit-picking about my usage of the word “obscene,”..."
Relax - all you were guilty of was putting an otherwise good argument in slightly hyperbolic terms and from faulty premises.
"Apparently to Mr. Fagan, commuters burning more than 1000 liters of fuel while travelling a distance of 0 kilometers is “ their bit to feed the plants with nutritious C02...”..."
So? I'll have a bit of a laugh on my own blog if I feel like it - besides, you're the one who feels that people not bothering to switch off their engines at a red light is "obscene". I'd describe it as "unnecessary".
"I have nothing else to say other than to thank you for the publicity."
No need to thank me - it's only got you 34 page views so far (some of those yours) compared to the near 1000 page views for the online edition of the Taipei Times.
"...after having read my letter to the Taipei Times, most people will not feel like I am trying to impose martial law, spray tear gas, or throw idlers in prison."
See what I mean about unnecessary hyperbole? Remember: I agree with your argument.
"You have most definitely taken a well-intentioned fight (sorry for the strong word) against pollution and turned it into something which you refer to as “Statist terms.”..."
That's not true as any honest reader can see: I did not "turn" your argument, I was quoting your "prospect of it becoming a law" directly and identifying that aspect to your argument accurately: "Statist terms".
"I think you need to look up the definition of the word “irony”."
(Ha!) Or is it you who needs to look up "externalities"? If you do, be sure to let the needy in on the content of both concepts: they need all the help they can get.
"Does this comment seem sexist to anyone else?"
It is sexist: it implies that poor vehicle maintenance is common among the female sex. Note however, that it does not imply that all women do not maintain their vehicles: my comment was not gratuitous.
Best,
mf
What you've done is put a negative spin on something otherwise really positive. You also give too many people the benefit of the doubt; if this was common sense, and if "anyone in their right mind" could figure it out, people would already turn off their scooters at red lights. But they don't.
Getting people to turn off their scooters is a change in behavior. There is a difference between saying "You should do it because..." and saying "Other people are also trying to do it, and it's so important that they are talking about a law." The latter definitely carries more weight.
The bottom line is that you are the only one that saw a military metaphor anyone in that letter, you are the only one skeptical that thought my idling stats were insufficient (an email asking to clear that up would have sufficed). Basically, you wrote a whole blog post because you didn't like my word choice. I understand that blogs are for voicing opinions, such as your take on "obscene" vs. "unnecessary," but the comments on your blog show that people were really influenced by your writing and also didn't understand clearly what you were saying. I know you went back and pointed out that they misunderstood some things, but shouldn't that ring a bell for you? That's your feedback, and there are people out there that read your post and are angry at Idle-Free Taipei for no reason other than that you managed to use words that I wrote and arrange them in a manner which suggests something other that what I said.
I have better things to do that don't involve searching out blogs to comment on and instigate their authors, but I've seen you have a reputation that implies that this is a hobby of yours. Of all the things to pick on and twist the words around (suggesting that the word "campaign" is a military metaphor is the twist), why would you find a topic that is void of opinions or anything negative?
I look forward to your line-by-line breakdown of everything I just wrote.
"What you've done is put a negative spin on something otherwise really positive."
I made criticisms of the way you put an otherwise good argument. You're the one "spinning" yourself silly over it.
"if this was common sense... people would already turn off their scooters at red lights."
True, but in this case it seems mimetic imitation is stronger than common sense. The "common sense" hypothesis could be tested by a survey I suppose.
"There is a difference between saying "You should do it because..." and saying "Other people are also trying to do it, and it's so important that they are talking about a law." The latter definitely carries more weight."
Actually there are three differences between those two positions: the first involves an appeal to rational argument whilst the second doesn't; and unlike the first, the second relies on both social mimesis and the prospect of coercion for its' intended effect. The second one "carries more weight" only among people trained not to think for themselves - why encourage the very unthinking mimesis responsible for the very problem you are trying to solve?
"The bottom line is that you are the only one that saw a military metaphor anyone in that letter..."
Check the etymology of the word: as applied to politics, which is the sense in which you intended, it is a military metaphor. The point is rendered with the utmost clarity by the inversion of Clausewitz's dictum that "war is a continuation of policy".
"Basically, you wrote a whole blog post because you didn't like my word choice.
No: I was motivated by the concepts signified by your choice of words. Choice of words is far more than just a matter of taste.
"...but the comments on your blog show that people were really influenced by your writing and also didn't understand clearly what you were saying."
You know what? My bet would be that if you were to ask them yourself, they would agree with your basic argument about switching off scooter engines at red lights. Relax.
"...there are people out there that read your post and are angry at Idle-Free Taipei for no reason other than that you managed to use words that I wrote and arrange them in a manner which suggests something other that what I said."
Name one such person, with appropriate quotation. And your assertion that I rearranged your words contrary to what you said is bullshit, as any honest reader can see: I was quoting you. You're not doing yourself, or Idle-Free Taipei, any favours here with this over-reaction to criticism.
"...I've seen you have a reputation that implies that this is a hobby of yours..."
It's nothing but an attempt to argue people out of their mistakes - which is exactly the same approach your Idle-Free Taipei "campaign" takes, minus the reference to a new law. The reason I am banned at places like Turton's joint is because of the discomfort people like him feel at having to defend their premises against strong argument. Of course, he will not admit this.
"Of all the things to pick on and twist the words around... why would you find a topic that is void of opinions or anything negative?
Is there really any need for you to bullshit like that? I have already identified what I thought was "negative" in the way you put your argument.
"I look forward to your line-by-line breakdown of everything I just wrote."
Lovingly crafted, just for you.
>In addition, the average time spent waiting at a traffic >light is 63 seconds
I'm interested as to how you got that number. (This is not some sort of challenge; I'm just really curious about how one would calculate that.)
For the past 2 months I've accumulated over 100 km driving around Taipei between 7-9 AM and PM(on most major roads east of, and including Jianguo Rd) with a stopwatch.
I've picked various destinations with various distances, and while en route, I count how many red lights I stop at, and I use to watch to clock how many seconds I stop. At the end of the journey, I take the cumulative time spent stopped and divide it by the number of red lights I stopped at.
For example, one of my trials I drove 6.1 km, stopped 9 times, and waited for a total of 391 seconds (about 43 seconds per stop). Other days I average in the high 60s and 70s.
Most trips started and/or ended in an alley or lane to be sure I included the shorter lights, not just the ones at major intersections.
Also, using the data I collected, I found for every 1 kilometer I drove, I had to wait on average about 85 seconds at a red light.
I'm not suggesting that everybody's commutes are identical, but I'd be willing to bet that the average wait/km and wait/red light is close to what I found.
Whatever the number may be, I hope we can all wait with our engines turned off.
Post a Comment