PDA

View Full Version : Student charged with firebombing SUVs


Frohickey
Mar 18, 2004, 01:28 PM
Student charged with firebombing SUVs (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/17/crime.suvs.reut/index.html)

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- A 23-year-old graduate student has been indicted for firebombing or vandalizing 125 sports utility vehicles in the Los Angeles area last summer, prosecutors said on Wednesday.

William Cottrell, who was denied bail by a federal judge during a brief court appearance, faces more than 70 years in prison if he is convicted on all nine counts, U.S. Attorney's spokesman Thom Mrozek said.

An attorney for Cottrell, who was arrested earlier this month, could not be reached for comment on the indictment, which was handed down late on Tuesday and made public on Wednesday.

According to the indictment, Cottrell, a graduate student studying physics at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and "other known and unknown co-conspirators" went on a spree of firebombing and vandalizing sports utility vehicles in August of last year.

(continued)

-------

Picture of the accused.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/LAW/03/17/crime.suvs.reut/vert.cottrell.ap.jpg

srobert
Mar 18, 2004, 01:41 PM
Good intentions, bad actions. He went destructive when he could have gone constructive.

By the way, he should have killed someone instead of vandalizing. This way he would'nt be risking as much prison. (Sarcasm... by the way)

Sun Baked
Mar 18, 2004, 01:46 PM
By the way, he should have killed someone instead of vandalizing. This way he would'nt be risking as much prison. (Sarcasm... by the way)But if he had killed 125 SUV drivers in a serial murder spree, he'd probably be facing the death penalty right now.

(Sarcasm expanded) Just wish he would have gone after the yuppie BMW drivers instead.

Mr. Anderson
Mar 18, 2004, 01:53 PM
Sad waste of a life....23 and 70 years to go....obviously he wasn't thinking too clearly. :rolleyes:

D

bousozoku
Mar 18, 2004, 02:06 PM
But if he had killed 125 SUV drivers in a serial murder spree, he'd probably be facing the death penalty right now.

(Sarcasm expanded) Just wish he would have gone after the yuppie BMW drivers instead.

(Sarcasm twisted)
Naw, better to go after the Pontiac drivers who envision themselves as yuppie BMW drivers. ;)

wdlove
Mar 18, 2004, 02:19 PM
That is very sad that he used his education at the California Institute of Technology for evil. Now we may have lost for ever his contribution if he had decided to be productive. :(

MongoTheGeek
Mar 18, 2004, 02:26 PM
Sad waste of a life....23 and 70 years to go....obviously he wasn't thinking too clearly. :rolleyes:

D

Don't count on the 70. Don't expect anything close to that. Its probably a handful of arson counts at 5-10 years a pop. If he does the time consecutively he could be out in 5. With appeals and all he might only get the time served.

The Sierra Club will probably get him a lawyer.

FriarTuck
Mar 18, 2004, 02:41 PM
Here's hoping he rode back to jail in a Suburban.

Frohickey
Mar 18, 2004, 02:57 PM
That is very sad that he used his education at the California Institute of Technology for evil. Now we may have lost for ever his contribution if he had decided to be productive. :(

Um... I don't think CalTech has classes in Firebombing 101.

We did not lose anything. He is the one that decided to throw it away. There are plenty of others that can take his place.

JesseJames
Mar 18, 2004, 04:28 PM
Here's what sound he'll make in the prison shower:

http://www.tomandjerryonline.com/sounds/ow.wav

:D :D :D

By the way, how do you get sound effects into the alert sounds roster in System Preferences?

MontgomeryBurns
Mar 18, 2004, 06:26 PM
If you have to do the time, don't regret the crime.

zamyatin
Mar 18, 2004, 09:57 PM
Here in LA I remember the original attacks in the news. Some of the dumbadze pundits were calling it "terrorism." People truly can be sheep.

Thanks to the increasing use of SUVs and too much reliance on cars generally, most residents of LA can look forward to asthma, lung cancer and heart problems due to the smog.

I wish there were some positive action individuals could take to reduce SUV and automobile addiction. I think his actions have only injured his cause.

Apple Hobo
Mar 19, 2004, 12:08 PM
This guy thinks he's doing something good for the environment by torching cars? :rolleyes: I wonder what kind of environmentally friendly fumes these give off when torched:

Car paint
Rubbers
Plastics
Interior textiles
Gasoline
Motor oil
Battery acid
Engine coolant
Transmission fluid
Air conditioner "juice"

Multiply the above by 125 and add the total to the other vehicles torched by other environazis. Now take a deep breath of fresh air!

Yeah, this guy is doing the environment a favor by torching cars. :rolleyes: Saving the environment is a good thing. Destroying the environment while thinking you're saving it is a bad thing.


Here's what sound he'll make in the prison shower:

http://www.tomandjerryonline.com/sounds/ow.wav

http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/s/gserv2/gifs/lol.gif http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/s/gserv2/gifs/lol.gif http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/s/gserv2/gifs/lol.gif

http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/s/gserv2/TempItems/prison.jpg

Frohickey
Mar 19, 2004, 12:14 PM
I think the 'terrorism' label is an accurate statement.
What is terrorism anyway? Is it just limited to people hijacking planes, or ships? Or is it limited to blowing people up in busses?

Terrorism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism) (n) - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

jsw
Mar 19, 2004, 12:16 PM
I think that most people who commit arson, destruction of property, etc. in the name of the environment are simply criminals who use that as an excuse.

Good environmentalists work within the system, or at least target Bush Republicans. ;)

Frohickey
Mar 19, 2004, 12:16 PM
I think what this guy should have done is get together with other like minded people, and go protest the SUV dealerships. Form a picket line in the public sidewalk. Or form a picket line in front of the SUV factory while union labor tries to walk in.

jsw
Mar 19, 2004, 12:18 PM
I think the 'terrorism' label is an accurate statement.
What is terrorism anyway? Is it just limited to people hijacking planes, or ships? Or is it limited to blowing people up in busses?

Terrorism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism) (n) - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Absolutely correct!

Although I'm not sure this guy intimidated anyone (forgot the original news coverage) so much as he just went on an SUV-in-the-dealer-parking-lots rampage. In any event, hopefully they can get some anti-terrorist law to pin on him and lock him away forever.

jsw
Mar 19, 2004, 12:21 PM
I think what this guy should have done is get together with other like minded people, and go protest the SUV dealerships. Form a picket line in the public sidewalk. Or form a picket line in front of the SUV factory while union labor tries to walk in.

Or, say, work for Toyota or GM or whomever and get the hybrid engines out sooner.

Hybrids can raise SUV mileage to 40+ mpg. Seems like a better thing for a physics guy to work on than firebombs. See Technology Review article (http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/fairley0404.asp).

Frohickey
Mar 19, 2004, 01:05 PM
Or, say, work for Toyota or GM or whomever and get the hybrid engines out sooner.

Hybrids can raise SUV mileage to 40+ mpg. Seems like a better thing for a physics guy to work on than firebombs. See Technology Review article (http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/fairley0404.asp).

Physics guy would know nothing about getting the hybrid engines out sooner.

A mechanical engineer, or automotive engineer would be the person you want. Physics guy would be the one to write books and articles about bits and pieces. The ME would be the one that put these things together to make a real thing you can use. Of course, we are forgetting about the ID person that is gonna make life a living hell for the ME saying he things like "Could you make a car that doesn't have wheels that touch the ground? I hate it when I run over a pile of dog poop, and it stinks up my garage." :p

Foxer
Mar 19, 2004, 01:21 PM
Here in LA I remember the original attacks in the news. Some of the dumbadze pundits were calling it "terrorism." People truly can be sheep.

Thanks to the increasing use of SUVs and too much reliance on cars generally, most residents of LA can look forward to asthma, lung cancer and heart problems due to the smog.

I wish there were some positive action individuals could take to reduce SUV and automobile addiction. I think his actions have only injured his cause.


There is.. don't buy one.

Even with the onslaught of SUV's, the air quality in LA is many times better than it was in 1970's.

My only problem with SUV's are that most people who buy them don't know how to drive them. They think they're still in that Accord they traded in.

In summary, all I can is ... Godd*mned eco-terrorists.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 19, 2004, 01:56 PM
Absolutely correct!

Although I'm not sure this guy intimidated anyone (forgot the original news coverage) so much as he just went on an SUV-in-the-dealer-parking-lots rampage. In any event, hopefully they can get some anti-terrorist law to pin on him and lock him away forever.

I disagree. Punishing people for their motivations for the actions is wrong and bad and all shades of not nice. Charge him with arson and destruction of private property and risking a catastrophe and all of the other laws that go along with it. Nail him to the wall for it but don't go putting motivations on trial.

Frohickey
Mar 19, 2004, 02:39 PM
I disagree. Punishing people for their motivations for the actions is wrong and bad and all shades of not nice. Charge him with arson and destruction of private property and risking a catastrophe and all of the other laws that go along with it. Nail him to the wall for it but don't go putting motivations on trial.

I guess that means you are also against hate crime legislation, eh? ;)

What you just said was the same thing the people against hate crime legislation were saying, but their arguments were tossed out by the emotionalism of the other side.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 19, 2004, 02:47 PM
I guess that means you are also against hate crime legislation, eh? ;)

What you just said was the same thing the people against hate crime legislation were saying, but their arguments were tossed out by the emotionalism of the other side.

Yep. Its criminalizing wrong think.

I think I will change my sig again. maybe just add it. "Legalize wrong think!"

I know its the same arguments. I would be extremely amused if someone backs hate crime legislation but doesn't think terrorists should be punished more extremely.

Mantat
Mar 19, 2004, 03:01 PM
Could someone tell me why you need an SUV when you live in a city?

Its just for the freaking look and powertrip...

These vehicules are such a joke and the marketing around them is ridiculous! I dont know a SINGLE person who as a SUV that does camping or goes in the wood with it.

richland
Mar 19, 2004, 03:05 PM
Could someone tell me why you need an SUV when you live in a city?

Some people use them to tow things(boats, 4-wheelers, motorcycles, ect.) as well as kids.

Frohickey
Mar 19, 2004, 05:02 PM
Could someone tell me why you need an SUV when you live in a city?

Its just for the freaking look and powertrip...

These vehicules are such a joke and the marketing around them is ridiculous! I dont know a SINGLE person who as a SUV that does camping or goes in the wood with it.

Its a "Freedom thing"... you wouldn't understand. ;)

...or...

In this country, where people have the freedom to do their thing, until it hurts another person from doing their thing, people can do what they want. So, some people buy and drive SUVs, while other people don't.


There are various justifications people will say when you ask them, but none are required.

jasylonian
Mar 20, 2004, 11:58 AM
There are various justifications people will say when you ask them, but none are required.

I think that justification for buying an SUV is required. There's no point to driving a vehicle that weighs twice as much as a normal passenger car and consumes more gasoline for no reason. When SUV drivers increase their gas consumption, the increased demand in gasoline drives up prices for everyone else. While wealthier SUV drivers can afford these costs, it effectively taxes the poor people who can't afford to buy newer cars and drive old gas guzzlers to McDonalds for work. Meanwhile, the added weight on our roads and freeways have hiked up repair costs. In addition to all this, has anybody seen the mortality rates associated with SUVs? I can't quote a number, but I can tell you they're higher than normal. If the government were smart, they would tax SUV's up the wazoo... especially Hummers.

MarkCollette
Mar 20, 2004, 02:24 PM
I think that justification for buying an SUV is required. There's no point to driving a vehicle that weighs twice as much as a normal passenger car and consumes more gasoline for no reason. When SUV drivers increase their gas consumption, the increased demand in gasoline drives up prices for everyone else. While wealthier SUV drivers can afford these costs, it effectively taxes the poor people who can't afford to buy newer cars and drive old gas guzzlers to McDonalds for work. Meanwhile, the added weight on our roads and freeways have hiked up repair costs. In addition to all this, has anybody seen the mortality rates associated with SUVs? I can't quote a number, but I can tell you they're higher than normal. If the government were smart, they would tax SUV's up the wazoo... especially Hummers.

When you advocate increasing taxes on SUVs, I find that hilarious, since part of the reason why SUVs are so popular is the tax loop hole of them being classified as a light truck, which means there are hefty tax exemptions for having an SUV. Just to be clear, I'm fully agreeing with you, it's just that before jacking up taxes, we should probably just remove the existing loop hole.

billyboy
Mar 20, 2004, 02:39 PM
Some people use them to tow things(boats, 4-wheelers, motorcycles, ect.) as well as kids.

Towing kids. That is interesting. Only in America! :D

So, do they have a rein draped out the back window for the kids to atttach themselves to? Do they get a set of rollerblades and a mask, or is it run for their lives till the exhaust fumes get them.

Off topic but a friend of mine is a vet and he had to attend to what was once a beautiful white furry Pyrenean mountain dog, it was beautiful until the owners who had it tied off the rear bumper of their Range Rover while they had a picnic jumped in and drove off forgetting the dog was attached. Yuk.

iGav
Mar 20, 2004, 02:42 PM
People like this really get my back up...

Rather than prison, he should be forced to gain employment, and then from his salary, compensation should be deducted each and every month leaving him with the bare minimal for him to survive and the monies paid to each of his victims until the cost of the damage is covered... however long it takes. That should do it nicely... ;)

MrMacMan
Mar 21, 2004, 12:30 AM
Some people use them to tow things(boats, 4-wheelers, motorcycles, ect.) as well as kids.

Yes he said IN THE CITY.

If you have a motorcycle your gonna drive it in a city, not tow it.

As for kids... thats what a mini-van is for.


Instead of firebombing (which I agree does more to the enviroment then the acual car would for a year of ownership -- unless you have a hummer, firebomb that POS, in 3 months you do more damage to the envirement then I could blowing up your car several times) I prefer just a normal slash the tires, key the car and bash in all of the windows.


Less jail time... and it doesn't kill the enviroment.



'Hey for our next model of SUV's... lets put a Turret! Something EVERY family of 4 who doesn't tow anything needs!'


:(

iGav
Mar 21, 2004, 05:01 AM
I prefer just a normal slash the tires, key the car and bash in all of the windows.

you're kidding yes???

zamyatin
Mar 21, 2004, 10:01 AM
Could someone tell me why you need an SUV when you live in a city?

Its just for the freaking look and powertrip...

These vehicules are such a joke and the marketing around them is ridiculous! I dont know a SINGLE person who as a SUV that does camping or goes in the wood with it.

In any respectable city, a car of any sort is totally unnecessary (Boston, NYC, Philly, San Fran, Chicago, in the USA). In Japan, I have read that less than 1/3 of adults have licenses to drive. In New York City, car ownership rates are 46%, whereas LA has 3x more cars than it has humans.

It seems like operating a car would be fun, if not for the fact that everyone is essentially forced to do it. (As with many things, done by choice, they are fun, done by fiat, they are hateful.)

Transportation freedom in the USA should include the freedom to travel by train, bus, bicycle, on foot or other. Unfortunately, almost every transport dollar spent is on building automobile-only infrastrucuture. Works great for the big companies who get to sell more cars (if you can't encourage people to buy your products, force them to!), sucks for Americans who are getting ever fatter and more asthmatic.

Spizzo
Mar 21, 2004, 02:23 PM
When SUV drivers increase their gas consumption, the increased demand in gasoline drives up prices for everyone else. While wealthier SUV drivers can afford these costs, it effectively taxes the poor people who can't afford to buy newer cars and drive old gas guzzlers to McDonalds for work.

Meanwhile, the added weight on our roads and freeways have hiked up repair costs.


Ok, first off, let me say i do have an SUV, but i dont live in the city. I bought it so i can tow my boat/dirt bikes, etc... Recently I've had to drive to Seattle a lot and it sucks, payin up the a** for gas, and the fact that it's not exactly small.

But I dont feel that SUV's are driving up the gas prices. I've worked for a US tanker company, and many times, i would see BIG OIL companys moving gasoline/diesel from a big city like LA, or San Francisco, and taking it to the east coast to drive up Oil/gas prices. Or they will slow production on the North Slope/elseware so that they can keep costs up.

I believe the rise in Trucking (Big Rigs) has put a hefty toll on our roads, raising the cost, i doubt it's due to the boom in SUV's. But I could be wrong.

JesseJames
Mar 21, 2004, 02:45 PM
Okay ya'll. I was watching the Chicago autoshow on TV the other day. All the manufacturers are going after hybrid technology big time. By 2007 expect all of them to offer at least one hybrid vehicle in their model lineups.
To quote Martha Stewart, "It's a good thing.".

If I were President I'd want to see 30% of vehicles on the road to be hybrid and or "green" cars in the next 20-25 years. I think that's do-able.
Especially those darn SUVs that Americans won't give up for anything.
They aren't going away people. They are here to stay.

If all goes well our great grandchildren should be driving the much heralded fuel-cell vehicles by then. Then finally we'll be able to not be too concerned with those damn oil cartels.

digitalgiant
Mar 21, 2004, 07:08 PM
Its the big V-8 motors that are the problem. All I ever here is how SUVs are killing the air we breath, what about all the other trucks with the same or larger motors? Or high end sports cars with their big ass motors? What a bunch of lamers........................

ddtlm
Mar 21, 2004, 08:10 PM
I think some people here need a little perspective. SUV's are wasteful, true. The big ones suck down twice the fuel that a midsized car would, true. But does anyone stop to consider the other ways that energy is wasted every day, and that pollution is generated? Where I live, a lot more diesel is burned every month heating my house than gas is burned powering my car... and you can bet my furnace is not as clean burning as most cars would be. I imagine that hot climates invest a huge amount of electricity on air conditioning.

Additionally, people need to realize that a lot of newer SUV's are creeping up on the fuel economy offered by minivans. For example, Ford's new Freestar van gets 1 MPG better (highway rated) than Honda's all-wheel-drive Pilot. Toyota's all-wheel-drve Highlander gets 1 MPG better than Ford's front-drive minivan. These are not small SUV's, either.

richland
Mar 21, 2004, 08:33 PM
Yes he said IN THE CITY.

If you have a motorcycle your gonna drive it in a city, not tow it.




Not if you race that motorcycle ;)

MarkCollette
Mar 21, 2004, 10:38 PM
Ok, first off, let me say i do have an SUV, but i dont live in the city. I bought it so i can tow my boat/dirt bikes, etc... Recently I've had to drive to Seattle a lot and it sucks, payin up the a** for gas, and the fact that it's not exactly small.

But I dont feel that SUV's are driving up the gas prices. I've worked for a US tanker company, and many times, i would see BIG OIL companys moving gasoline/diesel from a big city like LA, or San Francisco, and taking it to the east coast to drive up Oil/gas prices. Or they will slow production on the North Slope/elseware so that they can keep costs up.

I believe the rise in Trucking (Big Rigs) has put a hefty toll on our roads, raising the cost, i doubt it's due to the boom in SUV's. But I could be wrong.

I respect that you know more about the price gouging actions that oil companies undertake to improve their profits, than I do. So, assuming that oil companies are not completely setting the price of oil, but that the market demand sets the price of this commodity, which is how most commodities are priced, then yes, if a sizeable portion of the members of the population started using more gas, then they would drive up demand, and thus prices. But, like you say, that might be overshadowed by supply side shocks, like OPEC or illegal price fixing in the US.

Frohickey
Mar 23, 2004, 11:20 AM
I think that justification for buying an SUV is required. There's no point to driving a vehicle that weighs twice as much as a normal passenger car and consumes more gasoline for no reason.

Ah, the mantra of the would-be dictator... you need to give a reason/justification for the liberties that you have.

(My apologies if I mischaracterize your point.)

I used to think like the others here about SUVs. Why should they be allowed on the road? Why aren't they paying more to use the road? Why can't we tax them more? Why do they need such a vehicle.

Then I started thinking, its because they have the freedom, WE have the freedom to choose the type of vehicle to drive, and I would not want to take that freedom away from them, because that would mean it would be taking that freedom away from me as well.

These days, when people ask me how I can not be against SUVs, I say "Its a Freedom thing, you wouldn't understand." :D

Mantat
Mar 23, 2004, 12:39 PM
Then I started thinking, its because they have the freedom, WE have the freedom to choose the type of vehicle to drive, and I would not want to take that freedom away from them, because that would mean it would be taking that freedom away from me as well.

These days, when people ask me how I can not be against SUVs, I say "Its a Freedom thing, you wouldn't understand."

Wow! Why do you think that vandalising in a park is a criminal act? When the kid 'tag' the wall, he is just expressing his freedom of 'creative art'. Why, oh why should we even think about punishing him? Well, because he is damaging a PUBLIC property. Roads and air are public and the SUV are damaging them seriously.

The freedom argument is one of the most over use word in the US since 9-11. Liberty should not be abused. Remember that it must stops where other people liberty starts. This is a very important point that is too often forgoten.

If you want to fight for liberty, go talk about the liberty enjoyed by the prisoners in Guatanamo (sp?). Or maybe the hundreds who have been detained by the government post 9-11 and who are still in prison without any charges againts them... Or maybe going visit China for a weekend...

Trust me, there are more important fights for feedom than your laughable right to pollute...

jsw
Mar 23, 2004, 01:32 PM
Wow! Why do you think that vandalising in a park is a criminal act? When the kid 'tag' the wall, he is just expressing his freedom of 'creative art'. Why, oh why should we even think about punishing him? Well, because he is damaging a PUBLIC property. Roads and air are public and the SUV are damaging them seriously.

The freedom argument is one of the most over use word in the US since 9-11. Liberty should not be abused. Remember that it must stops where other people liberty starts. This is a very important point that is too often forgoten.

If you want to fight for liberty, go talk about the liberty enjoyed by the prisoners in Guatanamo (sp?). Or maybe the hundreds who have been detained by the government post 9-11 and who are still in prison without any charges againts them... Or maybe going visit China for a weekend...

Trust me, there are more important fights for feedom than your laughable right to pollute...

OK. Let's see here. First of all, do you have any proof that SUV's cause any more road damage than cars? Are they of a sufficiently greater mass and wheelbase that they are "seriously" damaging them? Assertions are easy to make.

Second, someone earlier was complaining about the "poor tax" imposed by the weathy people who drive SUV's and hike up gas prices. If true, then SUV drivers pay more taxes and therefore have the right to the public services they fund. Arguably, though, the largest number of SUV owners are solidly middle class.

Third, have you any proof that SUV's get any worse mileage than the fume-throwing 25-year-old cars I see others drive? Or that they damage roads more than those behemoths?

Fourth, the "liberty should not be abused" argument is dubious. Where do you draw the line? What is allowable liberty? What do you deem proper?

I live in the Northeast. I have kids and dogs. I need something to transport them safely. This is wrong from your point of view? I like to be able to see traffic ahead of me. Wrong? I like the easier access of a taller vehicle. Wrong? I have a home and often visit The Home Depot and Lowe's to buy items that wouldn't fit in a car. Wrong? Where is your line?

jsw
Mar 23, 2004, 01:35 PM
The freedom argument is one of the most over use word in the US since 9-11. Liberty should not be abused. Remember that it must stops where other people liberty starts. This is a very important point that is too often forgoten.

In what way does my ownership of an SUV abuse the liberty of others?

Mantat
Mar 23, 2004, 01:55 PM
Ownership of a SUV doesnt doesnt abuse the liberty of anyone. I said the word 'liberty' was too much abused...

As damaging the road, do they more than 'normal' car because of the weight. BUT this is more relevant in Canada with the freezin / unfreezing of the road, maybe not relevant in the US.

Most people who have a SUV use the 'I need to transport my family safely' argument. First, SUV arent safe do some googling and you will see ( I have no time for this since I am already trying to figure out the size of the internet (see other thread)). A normal car can carry 2 adults and 2-3 kids without any problems. If you need more room, get a mini van! Oh... you dont want a mini van because it doesnt look maleish enought? I think I have touched a point here... People buy SUV because of the look. I have too agree, they look good! Then they try to find justification to buy them... Look at all the ads for SUV, how many people that you know who own an Explorer are going to use it to work in the field or even go out of town with it? Not much... If you want security, you would get a Volvo...

And please explain to me since when middle class people can buy a 40k$ car. I was under the impression that middle class house get about that much in salary.

How can it be dubious to understand where your liberty stops? It has to be one of the easiest test of judgement one can make: we teach it to every kid. Dont do to others what you dont want them to do to you... You being a normal balanced person ( I had a neighbourd who thought listening loud music at 2am was ok).

I am loosing myself here... The point is just that SUV are big poluting cars who give a false sense of security. I will shut myself now, it must be unpatriotic to talk like that about SUV, or it will soon be! ;)

Frohickey
Mar 23, 2004, 02:23 PM
Ownership of a SUV doesnt doesnt abuse the liberty of anyone. I said the word 'liberty' was too much abused...

I am loosing myself here... The point is just that SUV are big poluting cars who give a false sense of security. I will shut myself now, it must be unpatriotic to talk like that about SUV, or it will soon be! ;)

Having too much liberty is not a bad thing. ;)

I don't have to justify to anyone else (except the wifey) about my vehicle choice. Once you fall into the trap of having to justify what you do, you have given your freedom away to the other person.

As to SUVs being more weight and causing more damage than other cars, thats a dubious assertion made by the Ms. Huffington's of the world. The proper application of gasoline taxes and other vehicle fees are for the maintenance of roads, and emissions control. If larger vehicles use more fuel, then their owners pay more for the road maintenance and air quality services than other vehicles.

The people that are railing on SUVs for their pollutants should clamp down on the landscapers and gardeners instead. Ever had to do a biannual smog check on your gasoline-powered lawnmower? Ever pay registration fees for that? But when was the last time you saw a big name celebrity rail against gardeners, who are most likely non-white, and maybe even illegal aliens? Its the same reason that PETA does not protest against HellsAngels motorcyclists for wearing leather.

jsw
Mar 23, 2004, 02:50 PM
Ownership of a SUV doesnt doesnt abuse the liberty of anyone. I said the word 'liberty' was too much abused...

We agree on that.

As damaging the road, do they more than 'normal' car because of the weight. BUT this is more relevant in Canada with the freezin / unfreezing of the road, maybe not relevant in the US.

We certainly have the issue here as well, but I'm just unsure that SUV's do appreciably more damage than cars - as opposed to tractor-trailers, which do vastly more damage (without them, though, no fresh groceries...).

Most people who have a SUV use the 'I need to transport my family safely' argument. First, SUV arent safe do some googling and you will see ( I have no time for this since I am already trying to figure out the size of the internet (see other thread)).

Actually, the studies I've seen show that SUV's do very well in accidents with non-SUVs. SUV to SUV, not so great.

A normal car can carry 2 adults and 2-3 kids without any problems. If you need more room, get a mini van! Oh... you dont want a mini van because it doesnt look maleish enought? I think I have touched a point here... People buy SUV because of the look. I have too agree, they look good! Then they try to find justification to buy them... Look at all the ads for SUV, how many people that you know who own an Explorer are going to use it to work in the field or even go out of town with it? Not much... If you want security, you would get a Volvo...

Mini vans do have the same room (or more). However, where I live with my mountain of a driveway, I need 4wd or AWD, which is very expensive in mini-vans. Not that my next vehicle won't be a mini-van, mind you. I just think it's wrong to argue that it's wrong to own an SUV or that it needs to be justified.

And please explain to me since when middle class people can buy a 40k$ car. I was under the impression that middle class house get about that much in salary.

Average US vehicle cost exceeded $30K last year. There are a number of SUV's in that range. My Liberty and Grand Cherokee cost $20K and $25K, respectively.

How can it be dubious to understand where your liberty stops? It has to be one of the easiest test of judgement one can make: we teach it to every kid. Dont do to others what you dont want them to do to you... You being a normal balanced person ( I had a neighbourd who thought listening loud music at 2am was ok).

I am loosing myself here... The point is just that SUV are big poluting cars who give a false sense of security. I will shut myself now, it must be unpatriotic to talk like that about SUV, or it will soon be! ;)

If Bush stays in power here, then yes, likely SUV ownership will be legally required. ;)

Yes, SUV's are big (which, as far as I can tell, isn't a sin), and they pollute more than most new cars. The way to fix that is, as previously noted, with hybrid engines, not by making them illegal.

vwcruisn
Mar 23, 2004, 02:53 PM
In what way does my ownership of an SUV abuse the liberty of others?



hmm lets see...

I cant see around your vehicle when you are in front of me causing one of the most dangerous blind spots (RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME) that could possible exsist.

When your vehichle hits me in an accident, your bumper lines up with my skull.. I can only hope you never t-bone me.

When you are behind me at night, your headlights blind me, I have to adjust EVERY one of my mirrors down to reduce the glare, causing me to divert attention to the road momentaril. Not only that but now all my mirrors are pointed to the ground and I can't see behind me.

you park in COMPACT parking spaces, and I can't fit my car in between you and the a**hole in the space one over. If I manage to squeeze, I come back to find a huge DING in my door. I can't tell you how much money I have spent fixing dents caused by parking lot dings, usually MUCH too high on my car to be from another car.

Your gas guzzling car helps our foreign dependecy on oil, which leads to unnecessary oil wars that kill my friends and family.

The extra weight of your SUV causes the roads and highways to wear faster (more weight.. more friction... its common sense). Thus my tax money is used faster for these repairs and there is less money to fund other programs, such as widening the damn road so theres not so much traffic.

My car has been backed into 3 times in parking lots by women in SUVs claiming "Your car was so low I did not see it." My reply? Well your vehicle is too high. Each time the damage was over 1000 dollars due to their bumpers lining up much higher than they should on my car. Insurance rates go up as more and more claims get processed, such as these avoidable incidents.


This is just a partial list.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 23, 2004, 03:49 PM
As damaging the road, do they more than 'normal' car because of the weight. BUT this is more relevant in Canada with the freezin / unfreezing of the road, maybe not relevant in the US.

Most people who have a SUV use the 'I need to transport my family safely' argument. First, SUV arent safe do some googling and you will see ( I have no time for this since I am already trying to figure out the size of the internet (see other thread)). A normal car can carry 2 adults and 2-3 kids without any problems. If you need more room, get a mini van! Oh... you dont want a mini van because it doesnt look maleish enought? I think I have touched a point here... People buy SUV because of the look. I have too agree, they look good! Then they try to find justification to buy them... Look at all the ads for SUV, how many people that you know who own an Explorer are going to use it to work in the field or even go out of town with it? Not much... If you want security, you would get a Volvo...

How can it be dubious to understand where your liberty stops? It has to be one of the easiest test of judgement one can make: we teach it to every kid. Dont do to others what you dont want them to do to you... You being a normal balanced person ( I had a neighbourd who thought listening loud music at 2am was ok).

I am loosing myself here... The point is just that SUV are big poluting cars who give a false sense of security. I will shut myself now, it must be unpatriotic to talk like that about SUV, or it will soon be! ;)

1) Road damage is mitigated by larger tires and less inflated tires.

2) Where is the difference between a minivan and an SUV?

3) On the golden rule argument I want people to get the car they want. So that means by your logic I morally need to get an SUV if I want one. :)

4) As for false senses of security they have better survivability in gov't crash tests. I will admit a higher level of accidents but I have never seen people in a suburban decapitated by a semi.

Frohickey
Mar 23, 2004, 03:52 PM
hmm lets see...

I cant see around your vehicle when you are in front of me causing one of the most dangerous blind spots (RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME) that could possible exsist.

When your vehichle hits me in an accident, your bumper lines up with my skull.. I can only hope you never t-bone me.

When you are behind me at night, your headlights blind me, I have to adjust EVERY one of my mirrors down to reduce the glare, causing me to divert attention to the road momentaril. Not only that but now all my mirrors are pointed to the ground and I can't see behind me.

you park in COMPACT parking spaces, and I can't fit my car in between you and the a**hole in the space one over. If I manage to squeeze, I come back to find a huge DING in my door. I can't tell you how much money I have spent fixing dents caused by parking lot dings, usually MUCH too high on my car to be from another car.

Your gas guzzling car helps our foreign dependecy on oil, which leads to unnecessary oil wars that kill my friends and family.

The extra weight of your SUV causes the roads and highways to wear faster (more weight.. more friction... its common sense). Thus my tax money is used faster for these repairs and there is less money to fund other programs, such as widening the damn road so theres not so much traffic.

My car has been backed into 3 times in parking lots by women in SUVs claiming "Your car was so low I did not see it." My reply? Well your vehicle is too high. Each time the damage was over 1000 dollars due to their bumpers lining up much higher than they should on my car. Insurance rates go up as more and more claims get processed, such as these avoidable incidents.


This is just a partial list.

What are you doing tailgating me anyway? Drafting only works in NASCAR, and at greater than 60MPH. :p If you are in a rush, pass me in the fast lane, where I'm not at, unless I'm passing the guy in the 1970 Toyota belching smoke in the next lane over...

When I hit you in an accident, and its my fault, then you can talk. Otherwise, you don't have a case. We don't arrest people because they have the capability of committing crimes.

waaah... my parents gave me slow-adjusting night vision... get me a waambulance... waaah

If I ding your door, then you can sue me for vandalism. You could always complain to the manager to get the A$$h0le SUV driver to move it. Yes, if you park a big vehicle in a compact spot, you are not fit to drive. There, I said it, there are bad drivers around... same as the non-handicap drivers that park in the handicap, or no parking zones, or fire hydrants... etc.

Unncessary oil wars...that place has not been at peace since before the Romans...

My tax money is used for these repairs, and I pay more gasoline taxes than you do. Plus, the taxes that I spend on gasoline... not my fault that the politicians that WE elected have decided to move it all to the general fund in order to pay for their pet projects like Outreach limo service for seniors, and sex change operations for city employees... also, I've asked for more lanes, but every single time, they turn that lane into a carpool lane that has at most 2 cars, and 10 motorcyclists during rush hour...

Some women belong in the kitchen, pregnant and barefoot... :eek:
Some men too. :p

vwcruisn
Mar 23, 2004, 04:08 PM
What are you doing tailgating me anyway? Drafting only works in NASCAR, and at greater than 60MPH. :p If you are in a rush, pass me in the fast lane, where I'm not at, unless I'm passing the guy in the 1970 Toyota belching smoke in the next lane over...


I take it youve never been to LA. Try driving on the 405 and NOT being close to the car in front of you. Oh, and the fast lane here is FULL of SUVs. What about city streets where im not "drafting at 60 miles per hour." I dont have to be TAILGAITING to have my vision obscured by a huge vehicle.



When I hit you in an accident, and its my fault, then you can talk. Otherwise, you don't have a case. We don't arrest people because they have the capability of committing crimes.


Regardless, accidents happen, and everyone knows that. It is irresponsible and very selfish to buy a car knowing you will be safe when your vehicle plows into a smaller car. If everyones car was around the same size, or at LEAST the bumpers lined up and what not, injuries on BOTH ends could be reduced.
[/QUOTE]


waaah... my parents gave me slow-adjusting night vision... get me a waambulance... waaah


Night vision? im not sure what you mean, im talking about adjusting my mirrors so im not blinded. Im not rich and cant afford night vision for my mirrors (whatever that is). Oh and I paid for my car myself (not that its any of your business), what makes you think my parents paid for it?


If I ding your door, then you can sue me for vandalism. You could always complain to the manager to get the A$$h0le SUV driver to move it. Yes, if you park a big vehicle in a compact spot, you are not fit to drive. There, I said it, there are bad drivers around... same as the non-handicap drivers that park in the handicap, or no parking zones, or fire hydrants... etc.


Next time leave a note. Oh, and I dont have time to go find the parking lot manager everytime I park to complain. Sorry.



Unncessary oil wars...that place has not been at peace since before the Romans...


Tell that to my friend who just lost his father a few months ago over there. I doubt that would have happened if Iraq had no oil.

2jaded2care
Mar 23, 2004, 04:41 PM
I thought it was all the (illegally) overloaded dump trucks tearing up our roads and bridges. Surely they weigh more than SUVs or minivans.

I'm no fan of SUVs, but some people need them. Others just want them, and they have the $$$ to throw away on metal, gasoline, and self-delusional ego. I don't.

I just hope the guy has to reimburse the insurance companies (our premiums, btw) for the damage he caused. In addition to the jail time for violating property rights.

The ends do not always justify the means.

Frohickey
Mar 23, 2004, 07:43 PM
I take it youve never been to LA. Try driving on the 405 and NOT being close to the car in front of you. Oh, and the fast lane here is FULL of SUVs. What about city streets where im not "drafting at 60 miles per hour." I dont have to be TAILGAITING to have my vision obscured by a huge vehicle.

Regardless, accidents happen, and everyone knows that. It is irresponsible and very selfish to buy a car knowing you will be safe when your vehicle plows into a smaller car. If everyones car was around the same size, or at LEAST the bumpers lined up and what not, injuries on BOTH ends could be reduced.

Night vision? im not sure what you mean, im talking about adjusting my mirrors so im not blinded. Im not rich and cant afford night vision for my mirrors (whatever that is). Oh and I paid for my car myself (not that its any of your business), what makes you think my parents paid for it?

Next time leave a note. Oh, and I dont have time to go find the parking lot manager everytime I park to complain. Sorry.

Tell that to my friend who just lost his father a few months ago over there. I doubt that would have happened if Iraq had no oil.

I was raised in LA traffic. :D When I had to contend with LA traffic, I changed my schedule so that I'm either on the other direction when everyone else is the other, or I change the time I have to be on the road so that I miss traffic. What do you do when you are behind a big semi? Same thing as you do when you are behind a SUV. SUVs are easier, since you can see from behind them through to the front, can't do that with semis.

Irresponsible and selfish to buy a car that has a greater likelihood of saving you in case of an accident? I buy the vehicle I want, you can buy the vehicle you want. Everyone has their wants, everyone is happy. Are you going to make a law saying people can't raise their 4x4 trucks?

Just be a safe courteous driver. Thats what most people here have forgotten. When I drive a SUV, I drive on the slow lanes, leave plenty of stopping room, and signal waay ahead of time. It seems that you are railing against the inconsiderate drivers, and you see the inconsiderate SUV drivers more because the vehicles are bigger.

vwcruisn
Mar 23, 2004, 09:20 PM
I was raised in LA traffic. :D When I had to contend with LA traffic, I changed my schedule so that I'm either on the other direction when everyone else is the other, or I change the time I have to be on the road so that I miss traffic. What do you do when you are behind a big semi? Same thing as you do when you are behind a SUV. SUVs are easier, since you can see from behind them through to the front, can't do that with semis.

Irresponsible and selfish to buy a car that has a greater likelihood of saving you in case of an accident? I buy the vehicle I want, you can buy the vehicle you want. Everyone has their wants, everyone is happy. Are you going to make a law saying people can't raise their 4x4 trucks?

Just be a safe courteous driver. Thats what most people here have forgotten. When I drive a SUV, I drive on the slow lanes, leave plenty of stopping room, and signal waay ahead of time. It seems that you are railing against the inconsiderate drivers, and you see the inconsiderate SUV drivers more because the vehicles are bigger.


you cannot compare semis to suvs.. sure they are relatively the same size :D They are for a different purpose. Do you know anyone that buys a semi to drive their kids to soccer practice? Would you have a problem with everyday citizens buying semis to drive to work and back everyday (assuming their profession is NOT a truck driver of course)

Raise your 4x4? Sure raise it as high as you want. Just keep it off the streets. Those things that look like Bigfoot (monster truck) should be strictly for offroad use only. What a hazard to society.

Again you take me out of context. Of course it is not irresponsible and selfish to buy a car that will make you safer in an accident. But when that safety is at the expense of crushing me into a twisted hunk of metal, then yes, it is.

I am a very safe and coureous driver, thanks. I have never been in an accident or received a ticket (aside from parking tickets :mad: )

No I am not railing against inconsiderate drivers. Someone asked how their SUV inpedes on my liberties and I was stating the numerous reasons I could think of offhand.

MrMacMan
Mar 23, 2004, 11:14 PM
you're kidding yes???

Heck no.

They owned a Hummer Repair Station nearby me.


They really need new security. Metal Chain fences = teh lame.


Please guys, atleast barbed wire if not the ones that really hurt -- razor wire.

G4scott
Mar 23, 2004, 11:49 PM
Instead of firebombing (which I agree does more to the enviroment then the acual car would for a year of ownership -- unless you have a hummer, firebomb that POS, in 3 months you do more damage to the envirement then I could blowing up your car several times) I prefer just a normal slash the tires, key the car and bash in all of the windows.


Less jail time... and it doesn't kill the enviroment.


Uh, tires, windows, and paint all take their toll on the environment too. I think it'd be safer to stick to more 'peaceful' means, like picketing. Vandalizing cars because you don't think they're good for the environment is a stupid idea. You can organize protests, send letters to your congressman, start a petition, and do one of many other things to get your point across.

As to the idea of not being able to see around SUV's, I seem to have a problem seeing around 18 wheelers when I drive my family's Suburban. I keep my distance, but I don't feel sorry for the geo metro who gets between me and the 18 wheeler.

As for SUV's polluting, you don't know how many small cars that I see that put more smoke in the air than all 4 cars my family owns combined. SUV's may burn more gas, but a well maintained SUV is better than that smoking Honda Civic that hasn't been inspected in years. Instead of just targeting SUV's, go after poorly maintained cars too.

vwcruisn
Mar 24, 2004, 12:09 AM
Instead of just targeting SUV's, go after poorly maintained cars too.


we have been for years now. ever heard of a "smog check?"

You can also dial 1800 CUT SMOG to report smoking vehicles here in california. I would expect other states have the same sort of program.

G4scott
Mar 24, 2004, 12:36 AM
we have been for years now. ever heard of a "smog check?"

You can also dial 1800 CUT SMOG to report smoking vehicles here in california. I would expect other states have the same sort of program.

There are numbers here in Texas for that, but 1.) nobody knows about it, and 2.) half of the cars are from Mexico.

If I see so many smoking cars, then apparently something isn't working, and should be fixed. Just because there's a number to call doesn't mean that people will call it.

Mantat
Mar 24, 2004, 08:35 AM
ok here are some facts why SUV are dangerous:

Cars are designed to handle collision with vehicules within a range of 500 pound of their weight. So when an accident involve a car and a SUV, the death rate of the people in the car IS higher. And dont even think about saying that its the fault of the car driver. Lost of control is more common in the case of SUV drivers than car drivers by a large amount.

now pollution:
(taken from the web)
Since SUV's are not considered to be in the same class as passenger cars, they are not required to abide by the same laws as the passenger cars. SUV's are included in the class with light trucks and thus, are not required to achieve the goal of 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars. But instead, they are to achieve a goal of 20.7 miles per gallon and some SUVs, such as the Ford Excursion, are not even considered light trucks and do not have to achieve any certain fuel economy level. As SUV's are not required to maintain efficient fuel economy levels, they release much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

And I dont know who is the idiot who said that SUV tires arent inflated as much as the one on cars. This is a ridiculous argument. Tires should ALWAYS be well inflated, else they will be even less full efficient. I know that for a car, if the tires arent inflated well, the car can burn more than 5% more fuel.

As for damaging the road, as I said, it is more relevant here (canada) because of the freezing / unfreezing than in the states.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 24, 2004, 09:15 AM
And I dont know who is the idiot who said that SUV tires arent inflated as much as the one on cars. This is a ridiculous argument. Tires should ALWAYS be well inflated, else they will be even less full efficient. I know that for a car, if the tires arent inflated well, the car can burn more than 5% more fuel.

As for damaging the road, as I said, it is more relevant here (canada) because of the freezing / unfreezing than in the states.

I am the idiot with the underinflated tires. Perhaps I shouldn't have let my membership in the SAE lapse but the last time I checked there are recommended maximum inflations for tires on different vehicles and the recommended inflation for SUVs is lower in order to improve handling and decrease the risk of accidents. (Lower inflation->soft tire->more deformation-> greater surface area on the road->better traction and handling) This of course comes at the expense of tire life and fuel efficiency.

The wear on roads from tires is related to the tire diameter, the Young's modulus of the road and the tire, the weight of the vehicle and the amount of travel. I don't remember the equation off hand but if you pick up a copy of Mark's Handbook and look for roller bearings and wear you should find it. The curvature of the road also enters the equation but since it is so much greater than the tire radius for most purposes it drops out of the equation.

I live in central PA and drive a small car. I am just about the only one I know without a pickup or SUV and I got stuck last weekend at scout camp on a paved road. Freezing is more of an issue here since there is the shift from below freezing to above which is where the damage really occurs.

jsw
Mar 24, 2004, 01:17 PM
ok here are some facts why SUV are dangerous:

Cars are designed to handle collision with vehicules within a range of 500 pound of their weight. So when an accident involve a car and a SUV, the death rate of the people in the car IS higher. And dont even think about saying that its the fault of the car driver. Lost of control is more common in the case of SUV drivers than car drivers by a large amount.

So now we can all agree that SUVs are safer in accidents. Sounds like an argument in favor of getting an SUV if you care about the safety of those who will ride in it.

now pollution:
(taken from the web)
Since SUV's are not considered to be in the same class as passenger cars, they are not required to abide by the same laws as the passenger cars. SUV's are included in the class with light trucks and thus, are not required to achieve the goal of 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars. But instead, they are to achieve a goal of 20.7 miles per gallon and some SUVs, such as the Ford Excursion, are not even considered light trucks and do not have to achieve any certain fuel economy level. As SUV's are not required to maintain efficient fuel economy levels, they release much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Hybrid engines. In 5-10 years, this will all be a memory. So, the main argument isn't that SUVs are bad, it's that SUVs pollute too much, right? Of course, you should probably look up major sources of CO2 pollution to ensure that SUVs contribute a significant amount before you rail against them. They might pollute twice as much as cars but still not enough to make a difference. But, I'd agree that, all things considered, it'd be a lot better if they polluted less. Same for all cars, lawn mowers, factories, cows, etc.

And I dont know who is the idiot who said that SUV tires arent inflated as much as the one on cars. This is a ridiculous argument. Tires should ALWAYS be well inflated, else they will be even less full efficient. I know that for a car, if the tires arent inflated well, the car can burn more than 5% more fuel.

Handled by a previous post. "Not inflated as much" doesn't mean underinflated.

As for damaging the road, as I said, it is more relevant here (canada) because of the freezing / unfreezing than in the states.

It's an issue in northern US as well.

Frohickey
Mar 24, 2004, 06:37 PM
As for SUV's polluting, you don't know how many small cars that I see that put more smoke in the air than all 4 cars my family owns combined. SUV's may burn more gas, but a well maintained SUV is better than that smoking Honda Civic that hasn't been inspected in years. Instead of just targeting SUV's, go after poorly maintained cars too.

Its just not going to happen.

You see, the ones that are going after SUVs are nothing if not Politically Correct.

Politically Correct people do not go after people in poorly maintained older year vehicles. The reason they do not is because these people are most likely poor, or not so rich. Another reason could be that these people are more likely to be illegal aliens that buy used cars because they can't go through the checks that a financing/credit check would expose them to. (Okay, anecdote from a car salesman that I asked.)

Politically Correct people would never dream of targetting the poor or illegal aliens.

jsw
Mar 24, 2004, 06:47 PM
Its just not going to happen.

You see, the ones that are going after SUVs are nothing if not Politically Correct.

Politically Correct people do not go after people in poorly maintained older year vehicles. The reason they do not is because these people are most likely poor, or not so rich. Another reason could be that these people are more likely to be illegal aliens that buy used cars because they can't go through the checks that a financing/credit check would expose them to. (Okay, anecdote from a car salesman that I asked.)

Politically Correct people would never dream of targetting the poor or illegal aliens.

Amen.

I'm not saying to target the poor. I'm just agreeing that it is hypocritical to blame the rich when the poor are doing the same thing.

G4scott
Mar 24, 2004, 07:02 PM
Politically Correct people would never dream of targetting the poor or illegal aliens.

Which is why politically correct people are often BAD!!!

The only problem is that you can't just target these people, you have to make a way available for them to get their cars fixed. That, of course, is probably never going to happen, because nobody wants to do anything with the problem...

jsw
Mar 24, 2004, 07:15 PM
Which is why politically correct people are often BAD!!!

The only problem is that you can't just target these people, you have to make a way available for them to get their cars fixed. That, of course, is probably never going to happen, because nobody wants to do anything with the problem...

Yup. Always so much easier to protest against something than to come up with a legitimate solution.

MarkCollette
Mar 24, 2004, 07:17 PM
So now we can all agree that SUVs are safer in accidents. Sounds like an argument in favor of getting an SUV if you care about the safety of those who will ride in it.


Hehehe, that's an interesting spin. Think of it this way:

If you and I run into each other, probably neither of us will really get hurt. It doesn't matter if you're a weight lifting guy and I'm a scrawny momma's boy, because we're still within a certain range of mass, and given an equivalent velocity, then our momentum is close enough, that our body structure will be strong enough to protect us.

Now say that you weigh 3 times as much as me, so you're like 450 lb and I'm 150 lb. Hell, you just sitting on me is gonna hurt :p So yes, it is safer to be you than me, so that kind of is an endorsement for your weight. But, if you weren't so overweight, then you wouldn't be a risk to me, other around you, the furniture you sit on, and your own heart. Hmm.. maybe I'm getting a little off-topic here.

Ok this is fun, so I'm going to use another analogy:

It's probably safer for you to run around with a spear pointed out, since that will keep you from stubbing your toe against other people, but now you're a homocidally dangerous threat to those around you.

So, back to the car vs. SUV thing then. Assuming we all screw up and get into accidents at a comparable rate, then if you SUV people are killing more people, then you are a threat to our safety, and so we're obviously going to try to stop you murdering bastards - umm, I mean, inconsiderate people.

And now for the serious reasons that haven't been mentionned yet:

1) While SUV owners have lower injury rates, they have higher death rates, do to roll-overs. So, you're safer in a minor accident, but less safe in a major accident. So when your SUV rolls over and squishes in your wife's skull, and you're holding her limp corpse in your arms, crying to the heavens, don't expect much simpathy from all the people whose kids were smashed to little peices from some other SUV.

2) The bumpers on SUVs are higher than on cars, for no real reason, other than aesthetics. This causes the SUV to go over top of the car, where it has very little protection, like the glass, decapitating the car-ists (and of course leading to our favorite roll-over for you). So, if that was rectified, then maybe SUVs would be safer for everyone, and we could all sing and dance in harmony. But they're not, so we hate you. :cool:

Hopefully that dispelled your illusions about SUVs and that all against them are PC ;)

jsw
Mar 24, 2004, 07:48 PM
Hehehe, that's an interesting spin. Think of it this way:

If you and I run into each other, probably neither of us will really get hurt. It doesn't matter if you're a weight lifting guy and I'm a scrawny momma's boy, because we're still within a certain range of mass, and given an equivalent velocity, then our momentum is close enough, that our body structure will be strong enough to protect us.

Now say that you weigh 3 times as much as me, so you're like 450 lb and I'm 150 lb. Hell, you just sitting on me is gonna hurt :p So yes, it is safer to be you than me, so that kind of is an endorsement for your weight. But, if you weren't so overweight, then you wouldn't be a risk to me, other around you, the furniture you sit on, and your own heart. Hmm.. maybe I'm getting a little off-topic here.

Ok this is fun, so I'm going to use another analogy:

It's probably safer for you to run around with a spear pointed out, since that will keep you from stubbing your toe against other people, but now you're a homocidally dangerous threat to those around you.

So, back to the car vs. SUV thing then. Assuming we all screw up and get into accidents at a comparable rate, then if you SUV people are killing more people, then you are a threat to our safety, and so we're obviously going to try to stop you murdering bastards - umm, I mean, inconsiderate people.

And now for the serious reasons that haven't been mentionned yet:

1) While SUV owners have lower injury rates, they have higher death rates, do to roll-overs. So, you're safer in a minor accident, but less safe in a major accident. So when your SUV rolls over and squishes in your wife's skull, and you're holding her limp corpse in your arms, crying to the heavens, don't expect much simpathy from all the people whose kids were smashed to little peices from some other SUV.

2) The bumpers on SUVs are higher than on cars, for no real reason, other than aesthetics. This causes the SUV to go over top of the car, where it has very little protection, like the glass, decapitating the car-ists (and of course leading to our favorite roll-over for you). So, if that was rectified, then maybe SUVs would be safer for everyone, and we could all sing and dance in harmony. But they're not, so we hate you. :cool:

Hopefully that dispelled your illusions about SUVs and that all against them are PC ;)

:) Good points.

But perhaps I'm including my vehicles (Jeep Liberty and Jeep Grand Cherokee) in a discussion that's mainly about the real beasts out there (Ford Excursion, etc.).

I believe that there should be a standard bumper height. Period. That would make a lot of things safer. I also think that the old "5 mph" bumpers should be brought back - ugly or not - because it sucks to do $5K of damage by backing up at 4 mph into a wall or post or whatever. But that's another story.

I think that higher death rates in SUVs are due mainly to the false perception that AWD or 4WD makes it possible to stop fast just because it makes it easier to go fast in the snow. Idiots will be idiots. I think that a properly driven SUV is no more likely to get into an accident than any other vehicle. I'd guess that sports cars also have higher death rates for similar reasons.

However, I do believe that, in a society with many, many SUVs, it is better to drive one than to worry about being hit by one. If someone hits me, then it's too bad for them if they're in a small car. I'd rather be the one who isn't hurt. Since I have a spotless driving record, I'm not too worried about the "smashed kids" scenario. I'm more worried about getting hit.

MarkCollette
Mar 24, 2004, 10:28 PM
But perhaps I'm including my vehicles (Jeep Liberty and Jeep Grand Cherokee) in a discussion that's mainly about the real beasts out there (Ford Excursion, etc.).

Hmm, yes but jeeps still have the higher center of gravity that leads to roll-overs. On a sidetrack I'll tell you something funny I heard. The humvee was the successor to the jeep (in the military?) for various reasons, one of them being its lower center of gravity, to reduce roll-overs. Then the humvee became commercialised, and sold to the public. It was quite popular. Then, out came the humvee2, which *drum roll please* raised the center of gravity way back up, thus putting us back to square one :)



I believe that there should be a standard bumper height. Period. That would make a lot of things safer. I also think that the old "5 mph" bumpers should be brought back - ugly or not - because it sucks to do $5K of damage by backing up at 4 mph into a wall or post or whatever. But that's another story.

I think that higher death rates in SUVs are due mainly to the false perception that AWD or 4WD makes it possible to stop fast just because it makes it easier to go fast in the snow. Idiots will be idiots. I think that a properly driven SUV is no more likely to get into an accident than any other vehicle. I'd guess that sports cars also have higher death rates for similar reasons.


Totally, 100% agree.



However, I do believe that, in a society with many, many SUVs, it is better to drive one than to worry about being hit by one. If someone hits me, then it's too bad for them if they're in a small car. I'd rather be the one who isn't hurt. Since I have a spotless driving record, I'm not too worried about the "smashed kids" scenario. I'm more worried about getting hit.

And here we have the problem, where the only logical choice for you, is to become a part of the problem for others. It's a race to the bottom.

So, we need to fix the problem that leads to this whole situation occuring. Now, just to be clear, I am in no way advocating that you lose your choice, I'm just saying that we need to tweek the input variables that everyone uses to make their decisions. Ie:

1) Do all the safety things we've both mentionned

2) Either remove the tax exemption for SUVs, or apply it to safer vehicles as well, or just all cars, etc. Essentially, level the economic incentive playing field. Hell, it might even stimulate the automotive industry and the economy

3) Use intelligent regulations to encourage technological advances to solve these problems. For example, legislate a set of required maximum stopping distances for velocities. Then the car companies could lower the vehicle mass, improve breaks, improve tires, etc.. Whatever their smart people can come up with to make things safer. Hell, maybe someone will come up with a huge external air bag. Whatever, just let the market choose the methods.

Frohickey
Mar 24, 2004, 10:58 PM
2) Either remove the tax exemption for SUVs, or apply it to safer vehicles as well, or just all cars, etc. Essentially, level the economic incentive playing field. Hell, it might even stimulate the automotive industry and the economy

3) Use intelligent regulations to encourage technological advances to solve these problems. For example, legislate a set of required maximum stopping distances for velocities. Then the car companies could lower the vehicle mass, improve breaks, improve tires, etc.. Whatever their smart people can come up with to make things safer. Hell, maybe someone will come up with a huge external air bag. Whatever, just let the market choose the methods.

It is not a tax exemption. What it is are CAFE standards, no its not something that Starbucks has on their corporate policy statement. It stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Which is a way of saying everything Ford sells has to hit a certain MPG overall. Still, its a bad idea overall, and this is why. You now have another bean counter over at Ford making sure that they have the right mix of CAFE, too many Excursions, time to make more Fiestas. Then, you have another bean counter over at the government making sure Ford follows the CAFE standard. How about just let Ford and its customers decide what to make and what to buy?

Each gallon of gasoline is taxed at a certain rate. If the car guzzles too much gas, then the tax paid to run that car is more. If a car sips gas, then the tax paid to run that car is less. Each customer can make up their mind how much they want to pay for gas. And they can base their buying decision on that. Enough people want gas-sippers, Ford sells more gas-sippers and starts designing cars that sip even less. Enough people want gas-guzzlers, same thing.

The way it is now, Ford needs to make some Excursions, and some Fiestas, enough to satisfy the CAFE, but if the Fiestas are not sold, they are scrapped or sold at a loss. How is that good for the wise use of resources?

Read this (http://www.designnews.com/article/CA279116), from an engineering magazine talking about SUVs and injuries.

As we reflect on the willingness of our astronauts and military personnel to lay their lives on the line for the sake of higher causes, we realize that there are values more precious than safety. Freedom is almost always obtained at the expense of safety, and requires an assumption of personal responsibility Responsibility for the consequences of our choices gives us dignity in spite of our imperfections.

I'll take freedom over safety any day. I'll be responsible for my freedom that I do not hurt your safety. But if you take away my freedom, you will never be safe from me. :eek:

MarkCollette
Mar 25, 2004, 12:22 AM
It is not a tax exemption. What it is are CAFE standards


Actually, there are tax writeoffs in the USA for entrepreneurs getting light trucks. Probably to help construction people or something like that.



Read this (http://www.designnews.com/article/CA279116), from an engineering magazine talking about SUVs and injuries.


That was funny, thanks for the link :)



I'll take freedom over safety any day. I'll be responsible for my freedom that I do not hurt your safety. But if you take away my freedom, you will never be safe from me. :eek:

Yes, but if you're dead, it's hard to enjoy that freedom :) There has to be balance. That's why we have things like the FDA, to restrict our freedom to choose substandard options that don't add value, but just hurt us.

ddtlm
Mar 25, 2004, 01:31 AM
Hmm, yes but jeeps still have the higher center of gravity that leads to roll-overs.
It is a contibuting factor in rollovers, as are all sorts of other things such as vehicle load, speed and the ability of the driver to handle adverse situations.

On a sidetrack I'll tell you something funny I heard. The humvee was the successor to the jeep (in the military?) for various reasons, one of them being its lower center of gravity, to reduce roll-overs. Then the humvee became commercialised, and sold to the public. It was quite popular. Then, out came the humvee2, which *drum roll please* raised the center of gravity way back up, thus putting us back to square one :)
You may have noticed that the H2 is a re-skinned Chevy/GMC Suburban. There's nothing Hummer about it but the shameful price tag. Who buys those anyway...

And here we have the problem, where the only logical choice for you, is to become a part of the problem for others. It's a race to the bottom.
Yes, for safety the logical choice is to get a heavier vehicle, and it will remain so until the rules of the game are changed for everyone. The people who can't afford big fancy cars/trucks will die more, that's how it is, that's how its been. I guess it's an incentive to move up the economic food chain. :)

vwcruisn
Mar 25, 2004, 04:53 AM
It is not a tax exemption. What it is are CAFE standards, no its not something that Starbucks has on their corporate policy statement. It stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Which is a way of saying everything Ford sells has to hit a certain MPG overall. Still, its a bad idea overall, and this is why. You now have another bean counter over at Ford making sure that they have the right mix of CAFE, too many Excursions, time to make more Fiestas. Then, you have another bean counter over at the government making sure Ford follows the CAFE standard. How about just let Ford and its customers decide what to make and what to buy?


you never cease to amaze me. are you actually saying you want the fuel efficiency regulations to be taken away? can you HONESTLY sit there and tell me that if they were not in place, that cars would be getting the MPG that they are today (technically, they should be getting more.. but thats another story). seriously tho... do you REALLY believe that the car companies would be putting as much time money and research into fuel effieciency standards if it werent required of them? surely you dont, that would be naive.. plain and simple.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 25, 2004, 06:56 AM
you never cease to amaze me. are you actually saying you want the fuel efficiency regulations to be taken away? can you HONESTLY sit there and tell me that if they were not in place, that cars would be getting the MPG that they are today (technically, they should be getting more.. but thats another story). seriously tho... do you REALLY believe that the car companies would be putting as much time money and research into fuel effieciency standards if it werent required of them? surely you dont, that would be naive.. plain and simple.

I don't know if he does, I do. They set up some unusual design constraints, they hurt vehicle safety, and they set a target for the auto companies. Most of the companies will only invest dollars into engineering to meet the requirements. If they can meet the requirements in other ways they will likely try that first(beancounters look at the CAFE requirements and everyone reaches for the most familiar tool) Additionally, why push efficiency to 80 mpg when you only need 40?

When the gas prices go up (like they are now) people look to get more fuel efficient cars. The goal of the car companies is to maximize profit. When people start looking for more fuel efficient cars the companies will design them. If there was clear profit in it then they would spend more money than they do now.

jsw
Mar 25, 2004, 08:35 AM
Actually, there are tax writeoffs in the USA for entrepreneurs getting light trucks. Probably to help construction people or something like that.

The only tax exemption I know of - for those of us who are not entrepreneurs - is on cars like the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, etc.

Thus, the economic incentive would seem to be to buy a hybrid. I think we can all agree this is good - same power, better mileage, less polution.

Of course, the main argument seems to be that SUV's are roving deathtraps, out to squish little cars like bugs. To that, I must agree with Frohicky. Buy a bigger car, or at least a Volvo.

And, yeah, if everyone drove semi's, I'd drive one too. Seems like the safest option. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Jeeps. And, for what it's worth, in ten years of Jeep driving - four different Jeeps between my wife and myself - I have not ONCE even come close to rolling the Jeep. Not even close. And I drove a sports car before that (Mazda RX-7...ahh, how I miss that car), so I was used to cornering a lot faster in the past. The fact that that rollover more easily does not mean that the rollover easily.

2jaded2care
Mar 25, 2004, 10:58 AM
The SUV tax break benefits not just "entrepreneurs", but anyone who can claim to be self-employed: "The tax break has encouraged people from all lines of work, including real-estate agents, lawyers, consultants, and many others-for whom this provision was never intended-to purchase a luxury SUV instead of a luxury automobile, which is not eligible for the same deductions." Link:

http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction.htm

It was intended to help farmers and small businesses, but it was (surprise!) extremely poorly written legislation and has become a "gimme" which benefits the rich and luxury automobile manufacturers. A "gimme" which results in lower tax revenues, which we all get to compensate for.

There are moves to get auto makers to lower SUV bumpers, which will help the safety issue.

As far as rollovers, I once had to swerve drastically to avoid an object in the road. I barely managed to keep my Honda on the road. I am firmly convinced that if I had made the same reflexive move with a Bronco, I would have rolled several times into oncoming traffic. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence.

Also recently we had a college official killed when his SUV rolled over. He was trying to avoid a dryer which had fallen from a pickup.

I'll stick to my Honda.

MarkCollette
Mar 25, 2004, 01:53 PM
It is a contibuting factor in rollovers, as are all sorts of other things such as vehicle load, speed and the ability of the driver to handle adverse situations.


You're so right, in the end it really comes down to operator error.

I'll tell you guys a story, since for some reason I just keep on taking up space in this thread :) When my brother died of cancer, some of my mother's friends drove down to come to the funeral, to be supportive, etc. Well, there was an elk or something like that in the road, and the wife of the couple swerved to avoid it, then she overcompensated to correct, and rolled the vehicle. The roof crushed in and killed her. Her husband and son survived because they were both asleep, and had their seats reclined. If she wasn't going so fast, or didn't overcompensate, then they'd all be alive today. But, to a lesser extent, maybe they would be too if the vehicle had been made safer. Who knows, but in reality, it was her fault.

Now, I'm such a sick bastard, that I'm not actually telling you guys that story to preach, but actually to ask: I wonder how many people die trying to go to funerals? Are there long chains of people going to funerals because someone died going to a funeral, because someone died going... you get the idea :)



Yes, for safety the logical choice is to get a heavier vehicle, and it will remain so until the rules of the game are changed for everyone. The people who can't afford big fancy cars/trucks will die more, that's how it is, that's how its been. I guess it's an incentive to move up the economic food chain. :)

How about this one: all the poor people are still driving second hand cars, back from the day that they were made of solid steel, and all the rich people are driving new light-weight crumple zoned cars. So, the poor people might well be safer than the rich :)

jsw
Mar 25, 2004, 02:13 PM
You're so right, in the end it really comes down to operator error.

I'll tell you guys a story, since for some reason I just keep on taking up space in this thread :) When my brother died of cancer, some of my mother's friends drove down to come to the funeral, to be supportive, etc. Well, there was an elk or something like that in the road, and the wife of the couple swerved to avoid it, then she overcompensated to correct, and rolled the vehicle. The roof crushed in and killed her. ...

FWIW: In late 1998, my wife and I were driving our Dodge Durango in central New York (state), where we lived at the time. Out of nowhere, a large buck (deer) ran in front of us and we hit it dead on. Damage to the vehicle, but none to us. Had we been driving a car, we'd likely have been injured or killed. I point this out because a friend died after hitting a deer with an Accord. So... I'd argue you're more likely to die or get injured hitting a large animal in a car than in an SUV. Usually, there's no real time to react anyway, esp. in areas where the trees are close to the road and stop you from seeing the animal until a split second before they run in front of you.

Also FWIW: I'm buying a Toyota Prius soon simply because I drive 50+ miles a day for work (commute) and the gas prices are terrible. We'll have one SUV (bad weather, trips, wife & kids, etc.) and one death-trap that gets good mileage. At least I've got decent life insurance....

Frohickey
Mar 25, 2004, 04:02 PM
Well, there was an elk or something like that in the road, and the wife of the couple swerved to avoid it, then she overcompensated to correct, and rolled the vehicle. The roof crushed in and killed her. Her husband and son survived because they were both asleep, and had their seats reclined. If she wasn't going so fast, or didn't overcompensate, then they'd all be alive today. But, to a lesser extent, maybe they would be too if the vehicle had been made safer. Who knows, but in reality, it was her fault.

If she just drove on straight, she'd be alive, the SUV would be totalled, the insurance company would be paying out to get the SUV replaced, and after the funeral, everyone would be eating elk burgers. :p

2jaded2care
Mar 25, 2004, 04:40 PM
I once met a Nissan Pulsar whilst going 55 mph in an old Accord (other car was turning left, couldn't see me, etc.). Neither car had airbags (unless I count). We both walked away.

Her insurance company, State Farm, was very nice (accident was not considered my "fault"). They even threw some money at me for lost time, doctor visit, etc. -- basically so I wouldn't manufacture some incapacitating injury and sue them. I guess that must happen a lot.

... Sorry about your brother and mother's friend, MC...

Dros
Mar 25, 2004, 05:32 PM
Yup. Always so much easier to protest against something than to come up with a legitimate solution.

Interestingly, California did have a "clunker" buy-back program to remove old cars with high tail pipe emissions from the streets. They purchased some 30,000 vehicles before the program ended because of lack of funding.

Frohickey
Mar 25, 2004, 05:34 PM
Interestingly, California did have a "clunker" buy-back program to remove old cars with high tail pipe emissions from the streets. They purchased some 30,000 vehicles before the program ended because of lack of funding.

If they resold the cars back to car collectors and restorators, they would have made money. :p

MarkCollette
Mar 25, 2004, 05:57 PM
If they resold the cars back to car collectors and restorators, they would have made money. :p

Or sell them to car dealerships, out of state ;)

Crikey
Mar 26, 2004, 12:36 AM
Don't count on the 70. Don't expect anything close to that. Its probably a handful of arson counts at 5-10 years a pop. If he does the time consecutively he could be out in 5. With appeals and all he might only get the time served.

The Sierra Club will probably get him a lawyer.

A kid here in Eugene, Oregon, got 22 years without parole for burning 3 SUVs in 2000. And that was *before* being branded a "terrorist" meant indefinite detention without any legal rights.

The American legal system has interesting priorities.

http://www.freefreenow.org/


Crikey

vwcruisn
Mar 26, 2004, 12:51 AM
A kid here in Eugene, Oregon, got 22 years without parole for burning 3 SUVs in 2000. And that was *before* being branded a "terrorist" meant indefinite detention without any legal rights.

The American legal system has interesting priorities.

http://www.freefreenow.org/


Crikey


thats corporate america for you. dont ***** with the captialist society or they will ***** you back. Go ahead and rob and rape and injur, maybe even murder someone and your sentencing will be far less. As you said.. the us has some interesting priorities.

oh and btw, blowing up some SUVs is NOT terrorism. whoever the genius was that decided that should be firebombed. arson is one thing but to lump that person with someone who would, say, fly an airplane loaded with people into an occupied high rise, is ridiculous.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 26, 2004, 06:50 AM
A kid here in Eugene, Oregon, got 22 years without parole for burning 3 SUVs in 2000. And that was *before* being branded a "terrorist" meant indefinite detention without any legal rights.

The American legal system has interesting priorities.

http://www.freefreenow.org/


Crikey

I took a look at that. It sounds like he had a crappy lawyer, who would rather martyr him than do what was best for his client. The DA would have probably been happy with 5 for destruction of private property along with restitution.

As for the circumstantial evidence, that include such things as fingerprints, being spotted running from the scene with an empty gas can screaming "I did it" and videotape of walking into said area with a full gas can. The weight of the evidence is for the most part irrelevant because the boy confessed.

2jaded2care
Mar 26, 2004, 09:37 AM
oh and btw, blowing up some SUVs is NOT terrorism. whoever the genius was that decided that should be firebombed. arson is one thing but to lump that person with someone who would, say, fly an airplane loaded with people into an occupied high rise, is ridiculous.

Frohickey, time to repeat your dictionary definition of terrorism.

This person is in the same category as any terrorist. Of course, the goals, means and results were different, but this person has allegedly committed destructive acts in an attempt to achieve a political goal. An arsonist who targets unoccupied synagogues is likely to get stricter punishment than one who torches random shacks, and deservedly so. Likewise, destruction of, say, petrochemical refineries or power substations by a group to "achieve" a political point -- even if no one is injured or killed -- is still terrorism.

2jaded2care
Mar 26, 2004, 09:40 AM
Of course, I may "deserve to be firebombed" for believing this. :confused:

jsw
Mar 26, 2004, 11:23 AM
oh and btw, blowing up some SUVs is NOT terrorism. whoever the genius was that decided that should be firebombed. arson is one thing but to lump that person with someone who would, say, fly an airplane loaded with people into an occupied high rise, is ridiculous.

Hmmm. Wanton destruction of property with the goal of inspiring political change (i.e., blowing up SUV's to get them banned). Sure sounds like terrorism to me.

Iraq war same as WWII? No. Both wars? Yes. SUV destruction same as 9/11? No. Both terrorism? Yes.

jsw
Mar 26, 2004, 11:27 AM
oh and btw, blowing up some SUVs is NOT terrorism. whoever the genius was that decided that should be firebombed.

And now you're advocating terrorizing people based on their descriptions of what is clearly a destructive crime.

I assume you would be willing to firebomb the poster? You advocate firebombing as a proper means of refutation?

Well, there are certainly numerous groups out there who would be proud to have you as a member. MacRumors is not one of them. Please go away and play with your fellow ______ [fill in the blank with your extremist group].

jeffy.dee-lux
Mar 26, 2004, 12:11 PM
Its the big V-8 motors that are the problem. All I ever here is how SUVs are killing the air we breath, what about all the other trucks with the same or larger motors? Or high end sports cars with their big ass motors? What a bunch of lamers........................


the size of the engine is a big deal, but so is the size of the car. sure a mustang has a 4.6 litre engine, but its moving around a lot less mass than the same engine does in a ford expedition, and 4.6L is pretty small for suvs that size. A big engine is a big engine, and uses a lot of gas, but the heavier the car, the more energy it has when its moving, and therefore the more energy you have to put into it in the form of gas.

an efficient vehicle is one that moves someone around, without wasting a lot of energy on moving the vehicle around itself. Its all about the ratio of the mass of what you want to move around to the mass of what you're using to move it around.
bikes are pretty good about that, a 30lb bike can make a 200lb guy move pretty fast. most cars can only carry a lot less than what they weigh themselves. and even big 3 ton trucks which are capable of carrying a lot of stuff usually end up carrying only about 200lbs of wasteful human.

Frohickey
Mar 26, 2004, 02:09 PM
Fallen ‘Tre’ - FBI Calls Arrest of Alleged Eco-Terrorist a ‘Big Capture,’ But Will It Affect Movement? (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/SciTech/eco_terrorism_040323.html)

March 23— The FBI's capture of a prominent figure in what it calls the nation's worst domestic terrorist threat may do little to slow the radical environmental movement known as the Earth Liberation Front, federal authorities acknowledge.

The suspect, Tre Arrow, also known as Michael Scarpitti and numerous other pseudonyms, is a charismatic figure who has run for political office before running from the law after being accused as the ringleader in a pair of environmentally motivated arson attacks.

"It's a very big capture for us," said Beth Anne Steele, spokeswoman for the Portland, Ore., office of the FBI. "[The suspect has] been indicted in two firebombing cases here. He's certainly very important to us. It remains to be seen what broader effect the arrest will have."

Arrow was arrested March 13 by police in Victoria, British Columbia, after he allegedly tried to shoplift a pair of boltcutters, even though he had $185 in his pockets, authorities said.

"When you're on the run wanted by the FBI, maybe you should just buy the boltcutters," joked Officer Rick Anthony, spokesman for the Victoria police department.

Arrow was being held in a Victoria jail, while the FBI, Victoria police and Canadian immigration officials sorted out how extradition would proceed. Anthony and Steele both said there was no timetable for his return to the United States.

"We want to get him back to those guys [the FBI] as quickly as possible," Anthony said.

No Leadership, Just a Shared Ethos

It was the second such arrest this month. On March 9, the FBI nabbed Billy Cottrell, 23, of Pasadena, Calif., on charges of arson, using a destructive device and conspiracy in a series of firebombings last August at an SUV dealership and of several vehicles at private homes that caused damages worth an estimated $2.3 million.

Cottrell, a California Institute of Technology student, was tracked down after allegedly sending anonymous e-mails to the Los Angeles Times claiming responsibility for the fires that destroyed or damaged 125 SUVs.

But will the busts matter? Law enforcement and others who monitor the radical environmental movement have long recognized the non-hierarchical structure of the ELF, which has claimed responsibility for causing more than $100 million worth of damage since 1997.

ELF has no leadership structure; individuals or small cells carry out actions on their own. The only link is a shared belief that radical action is needed to stop development, logging, pollution, genetic engineering research and anything else seen as threatening to the environment.

(((Remind you of how another terrorist group operates?)))

In the hundreds of incidents the group has claimed responsibility for, no one has been killed and only a handful of people have been injured, and postings on the group's Web site have generally expressed the belief that all life is sacred and actions should be carried out in such a way as to minimize the risk of injury.

Does Arrest Show Vulnerability?

If the arrests have any effect on the movement's adherents, some observers say, it will likely only be psychological.

"For the last several years, inciters and eco-terror supporters have focused on the fact that so few have been arrested — only a handful of those responsible have been brought to justice," said Kelly Stoner, the director of Stop Eco-Violence, a group that monitors the ELF and other radical environmentalists.

"This might change that impression of invulnerability," she said.

But she and law enforcement acknowledged the arrest was the result of Arrow's carelessness, rather than his being tracked down.

Scholars who study the movement say they expect no decrease in the activity of radical environmentalists.

"The arrests will have zero effect," University of Texas philosophy professor Steve Best said. "It's too decentralized of a network."



Bron Taylor, a professor of religion at the University of Florida, said he has the impression, based on interviews he has done over the years with people claiming to be ELF activists, the arrests will have no impact whatever.

He noted, however, several high-profile arrests and convictions in the late 1980s seemed to slow down the "monkey-wrenching" movement, which was a kind of precursor to the ELF.

"It seems some activists concluded they couldn't do the Earth any good behind bars and they developed different tactics," he speculated.

Yet one ELF activist, now serving a 22-year prison sentence for an arson attack that destroyed three SUVs at a Eugene, Ore., car dealership, has not allowed prison to stop his activism. Jeffery "Free" Luers has written extensively for alternative media and has a Web site.

‘Leader and Instigator’

Arrow is accused of playing leading roles in the April 2001 firebombing at a sand and gravel company in Portland that destroyed three concrete trucks and did more than $200,000 worth of damage, as well as in the June 2001 arson at a logging company in Eagle Creek, Ore., that damaged two logging trucks and a front loader.

Three others have pleaded guilty to involvement in the logging company arson, and according to court documents, one of them, Jacob Sherman, cooperated with investigators and told them Arrow, was "the leader and instigator" and had "groomed" him as an environmental activist.

The role of exemplar was one Arrow seemed to play for many in the Northwest, an area considered to be sympathetic to the philosophy of "deep ecology" espoused by ELF.

"In the Portland area he was fairly famous for his dedication and his activities for several years," former ELF spokesman Craig Rosebraugh said. "I would think he inspired a lot of people because he showed a strong presence. Everything from his tree sits to his happiness and the way he lived life." He drew attention to himself and to his cause in July of 2000 with a highly visible form of tree-sitting.

Instead of perching in an old growth giant threatened by logging deep in the woods, he climbed the facade of the building where the U.S. Forest Service has its offices in Portland and made himself at home on a 9-inch-wide ledge for 11 days.

After Run for Congress, Canada Became Refuge

The popularity he gained from that protest turned him from being just another of the city's counter-culture eccentrics, perhaps recognizable for his habit of going barefoot, into an energizing public figure.

He used that public attention in a run for Congress on the Pacific Green Party ticket in the fall of 2000, receiving more than 15,000 votes — a little more than 6 percent — despite having virtually no funding.

"Because he gained notoriety for the window-ledge sit, he was able to gain quite a bit of public relations just from that for his campaign," Rosebraugh said. "The goal was just to try to get more education out about the situation of the environment and I think he did that."

Police believe Arrow, who was calling himself Joshua Murray when he was arrested, was able to convince numerous people across Canada to let him stay with them, and it appears he was in the country for nearly the entire 18 months he was on the run, Anthony said.

He was found with about two dozen names and phone numbers, and some of those people told police that he had stayed with them, though it is not yet clear whether any of them knew his true identity, Anthony said.

"He tries to come across as this vegan, 'I'm just an Earth-loving person,' but we don't buy that," Anthony said. "After all, bolt cutters are one of the primary tools in an eco-terrorist's tool box."

http://a.abcnews.com/media/US/images/ho_scarpitti_040316_nh.jpg
Tre Arrow, also known as Michael Scarpitti, was on the FBI's most wanted list for more than a year as a fugitive accused of two arson attacks linked to the Earth Liberation Front.
Handout

===========

Maybe he can share a cell with Billy Cottrell. :p

jsw
Mar 26, 2004, 02:32 PM
Fallen ‘Tre’ - FBI Calls Arrest of Alleged Eco-Terrorist a ‘Big Capture,’ But Will It Affect Movement? (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/SciTech/eco_terrorism_040323.html)

March 23— The FBI's capture of a prominent figure in what it calls the nation's worst domestic terrorist threat may do little to slow the radical environmental movement known as the Earth Liberation Front, federal authorities acknowledge. ...

Perhaps we should round all these ELFers up and drop them naked into the Serengeti (http://www.serengeti.org/). Since technology, advancement, etc. are so bad, then surely they'd be much happier being there. And, shortly, the lions would be happier too.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 26, 2004, 03:38 PM
Perhaps we should round all these ELFers up and drop them naked into the Serengeti (http://www.serengeti.org/). Since technology, advancement, etc. are so bad, then surely they'd be much happier being there. And, shortly, the lions would be happier too.

I would say set them free among the Yanomamo of Brazil. (The Yanomamo are referred to by anthropologists who study then as those b*@#$$s, the average adult male has killed 3 people )