SUV Protest

brink said:

i think the inherent danger is in a person driving away with deflated
tire(s) without being aware of it.

I think the "Hey, I can get into my SUV without using the stepladder!"
effect would clue them in.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

As a conservative estimate, I'd say 99% of SUV owners have no practical
need for the monstrosities. The trend is driven by a combination of
conspicuous consumption and stupidity.

Areas that get a lot of snow and ice often have a lot of SUVs. While
you can get around without 4-wheel drive in such areas, having it might
make the difference between being stuck and getting home.

Minivans are especially bad in icy road conditions, as they are heavier
than cars, but usually only have two-wheel drive. Rear-wheel drive cars
can be even worse.

I have a front-wheel drive "economy car". It handles snow OK, but not
as well as a Jeep.

In general, though, I agree with your sentiments about SUVs.

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I heard this on NPR today. I'm not sure why but I found it humorous.
It seems that in the St. Germain des Pres district of Paris
environmentalists are protesting the presence of monster SUVs by
letting the air out of the tires. They then leave a pamphlet on the
windshield explaining their motives.

Here is a link to today's show (September 13th):
http://theworld.org/latesteditions/09/20050913.shtml
You can listen to the entire show or scroll to the bottom and click on
the "Geo Answer Interview".

Article in The Times this morning.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1778863,00.html

"Ecowarriors go into battle against 4x4s - with cycle pumps"

Includes...

"DRIVERS who park gasguzzling 4x4s overnight in Paris are receiving an
unpleasant surprise in the morning: flat tyres. A gang of young activists
are deflating the tyres of what they regard as anti-social urban tanks which
clog the narrow streets of the Left Bank."

"To the amazement of furious owners, the police say that it is not a crime
because property is not damaged. "We have had complaints, but it is not
clear that any offence is being committed," said an officer at the sixth
arrondissement."

"They expel the air slowly without setting off the vehicles' alarms, fixing
open bicycle pump hoses to the tyre valves and returning later to collect
their equipment. They leave a leaflet explaining their action."

Cheers, helen s

Patrick Lamb said:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:22:48 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even if that were true, in this day an age "environmentalists" are a
small slice of the population to worry about. Besides we .. I mean
THEY, they have Priuses now.

Yup. That's me. Gave the Pathfinder to charity a couple years back.
Decided that--on balance--I just wasn't skiing, camping, scuba diving,
off-roading, and mountain biking in the boonies as much as I used to.
15mpg just didn't make sense. The Prius--once I added the receiver
and hitch-mounted rack--serves 99% of my needs admirably.

BTW, what did the bike and rack do to your mileage on your long trip a
couple months back?

Generally, having the rack on the Prius has cost me about 1mpg,
leaving me with a lamentable . . . oh, about 43mpg average.

On the road trip (San Diego to Monterey, CA), I averaged about 44,
with the bike, associated gear, three adults, and their luggage in the
car.

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I heard this on NPR today. I'm not sure why but I found it humorous.

Something else folks might find humorous, on the topics of SUVs:

http://www.capsteps.com/sounds/suv.ra (requires Real Audio)

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Bill Henry said:

Quoted message said:

As a conservative estimate, I'd say 99% of SUV owners have no practical
need for the monstrosities. The trend is driven by a combination of
conspicuous consumption and stupidity.

Areas that get a lot of snow and ice often have a lot of SUVs. While
you can get around without 4-wheel drive in such areas, having it might
make the difference between being stuck and getting home.

For which Suburu makes all wheel drive sedans and station wagons. But
of course, they don't sell as well as their SUV versions, which are the
same vehicles, only jacked up a few inches and with garish trim.
Several European auto companies sell all wheel drive sedans and wagons
as well. In short, you don't need a big honking SUV to have all wheel
drive for the snow. My Suburu wagon gets something like 20 mpg city
and 28 mpg highway, and costs less than any SUV with the same amount of
interior room - or at least it did when I bought it in 2000 - I haven't
kept up with prices since then.

Later,
Mark Muller

Bill Henry said:

Quoted message said:

I will tell you that my SUV does a lot less damage to roads and is a
lot quieter
than the more fuel efficinet ATV's that wreak havoc in some of these
areas.

Intersting you should mention that.

Last weekend I was watching TV and saw this show on Spike network called
"Trucks!"

The show is hosted by this friendly guy with a southern accent who fixes
up old 4x4s (Jeeps and whatnot) so they can go "off-roading". On this
show he was mounting a couple of large bumpers to his rig, along with a
12,000 lb winch. There were a few other mods, too, that I didn't catch.

Anyhow, he takes a camera crew out with him to some nice, quiet
location, and proceeds to drive his Jeep all up and down this
creek/river, tearing up mud and grass and doing God-knows-what to the
local ecosystem. At one point he gets stuck and uses his winch to pull
himself out so he can keep on burning his gas and tearing around the
countryside. At one point he hollers "Now that's what I call FUN!"

I can think of a lot of words for someone like that, but
"environmentalist" does not come quickly to mind.

I'm not implying that YOU do this in your SUV, but my point is that just
because somebody enjoys the outdoors, does not mean they're necessarily
concerned about the environment or its preservation/protection.

Finally, I do recognize and respect people who use these vehicles
responsibly, and for their intended purpose.

An environmentalist, is someone who can go, appreciate a natural
setting, and after they have left, there is little evidence (preferably
no evidence) that they were ever there. Environmentalists can come in
all types, shapes and transportation modes, whether that be a 4wd, ATV,
bike or walking/hiking. Most environmentalists would prefer the bike or
walking/hiking, because you leave less trace evidence of your passing.

A person who tears up areas on a 4wd, ATV or worst snowmobile, is a
jerk, who should be banned from anything but streets in a city core.

W

Bill Henry said:

Quoted message said:

As a conservative estimate, I'd say 99% of SUV owners have no practical
need for the monstrosities. The trend is driven by a combination of
conspicuous consumption and stupidity.

Areas that get a lot of snow and ice often have a lot of SUVs. While
you can get around without 4-wheel drive in such areas, having it might
make the difference between being stuck and getting home.

I live in Canada, we know about snow and ice around here, one thing more
important then getting going, is stopping, EVERY car has the same number
of brakes, and the same kind of brakes. I see lots of SUVs dirty side
up, because 4wd gives more go, but the same amount of stop.

Quoted message said:

Minivans are especially bad in icy road conditions, as they are heavier
than cars, but usually only have two-wheel drive. Rear-wheel drive cars
can be even worse.

RWD can be fine in the snow, you just need to remember the key winter
driving rule: Don't do anything quickly, don't accelerate quickly, don't
stop quickly, don't steer quickly, just take it nice and easy, I have
personally driven a RWD up a twisty 12% grade, with no problems what so
ever. Second winter driving rule, don't stop on a hill.

W

Quoted message said:

I have a front-wheel drive "economy car". It handles snow OK, but not
as well as a Jeep.

In general, though, I agree with your sentiments about SUVs.

Rich said:

Quoted message said:

So potentially someone in an emergency situation might run out to his
vehicle and be unable to get to the hospital, or his parents' home,
or his kids' school, or whatever. Yeah, that's really taking the
moral high ground.

In an emergency situation, people should call 911. The last thing we
need is a guy in a hummer driving like a madman to get somewhere.

Ambulances cost money.

I live about six blocks from a hospital. Does it make more sense to
drive the five minutes thereto or wait around for an ambulance which
will take longer to arrive?

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Contrary to popular opinion there often is a right answer.
--Carter & Sanger, Thinking about Programming

--
mark
<[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

I don't know what your roads are like. But I recall during the 1970s
driving a VW Beetle or a VW Bus into some very remote mountain roads
for backpacking and camping trips. I recall one trip where the Bus
couldn't make it up a steep, gravelly dirt road, so the four passengers
had to get out to reduce the weight as I drove on through the steep
part. No big deal.

A lot of the backcountry roads here in Colorado may well havde been
negotiable in a VW Beetle or Bus in the '60s and '70s, but the dramatic
increase in SUV traffic on these roads, the excess weight of modern SUVs,
and lack of maintenance have made these roads impassable for anything
without big fat tires, lots of clearance, and either very low gearing or a
fair bit of low end torque. Even with an SUV, travelling these roads can be
a difficult, unpleasant experience. Hiking them, OTOH, is fairly pleasant
and not a whole lot slower than driving on them.

VW bugs/busses were designed in an era when lots of roads weren't paved, so
it's not surprising that they do well off pavement. I recall John Muir's
repair manual "How to keep your Volkswagen Alive" devoting a fair bit of
attention to off pavement travel in busses and bugs. I still see a fair
number of VW based offroad vehicles around my part of Colorado, most of them
obviously used off-pavement more than on (unlike the SUVs I see).

Quoted message said:

4WD isn't necessary for most backcountry work. That idea's just
another product of the ad-man's fantasies.

True, but as the big heavy SUVs tear up the roads smaller vehicles have more
and more trouble negotiating them

Quoted message said:

BTW, of the SUV owners I know, the one (and only) one who bought it for
"backpacking, rock climbing, yada yada" does those activities about
once per year. The rest of the time he drives it the three miles to
work and back.

And I was with him the first time he took it into the woods - about 100
yards. He freaked about the possibility of cosmetic damage, then
decided to slowly back out.

As a conservative estimate, I'd say 99% of SUV owners have no practical
need for the monstrosities. The trend is driven by a combination of
conspicuous consumption and stupidity.

Here in Colorado the number is probably more like 80%, but that's still a
lot of conspicuous consumption and stupidity.

--
mark

"gds" wrote...

Quoted message said:

While SUV's get really bad press I imagine that in fact SUV's and pick
ups are the vehicles of choice for many environmentalists.
While tooling around central Paris or even downtown Chicago in an 6 mpg
Hummer is pretty sick, I think that many who consider themselves
environmentalists are involved in the types of outdoor activites for
which high clearance and 4wd are pretty important.
For myself I do a lot of back country hiking and rock climbing. Many of
the mountain roads that I use would be unpassable in a car. I will tell
you that my SUV does a lot less damage to roads and is a lot quieter
than the more fuel efficinet ATV's that wreak havoc in some of these
areas.

I do a fair bit of backcountry hiking and climbing myself. I drive my Honda
Civic as far as I feel comfortable on dirt roads, then I park it and start
hiking. Many of the roads I use have been trashed by large numbers of big,
heavy SUVs that these roads were never designed to accomodate. Driving these
roads in any vehicle is a slow, uncomfortable process and entails a
significant risk of cosmetic and mechanical damage to the vehicle, while
walking them is not bad at all (except when a motor vehicle comes by). My
back country trips entail up to 200 miles of paved or good dirt road,
followed by 3 or 4 miles of really bad road that requires an off road
vehicle. With those numbers it makes a lot more sense to drive a passenger
car as far as practical, then walk when the road deteriorates.
--
mark

Bill Henry said:

At one point he hollers "Now that's what I call FUN!"

Been there, done that, and yeah I have to admit it's fun.

I suppose I can be a little more sanctimonious than the gas-burning
Prius owners, though, since I gave up my gas burning SUV last March and
replaced it with nothing (except increased bike usage).

RFM

Bill Henry said:

Rear-wheel drive cars can be even worse.

You just need to learn to drive in the snow. I lived seven winters in
rural central Illinois with a RWD truck. My step-father-in-law in
Colorado takes snow-covered windy mountain back roads in the winter on
his 2WD pickup.

RFM

Claire Petersky said:

http://www.capsteps.com/sounds/suv.ra (requires Real Audio)

That's pretty good :-)

Here's another catchy tune:

Oh oh, you and me
In our sport utility vehicles
Cruisin to 7-11
For a bag of Frito Lays

Oh oh, you and me
In our sport utility vehicles
We'll slam into four wheel drive
And pick up a dozen eggs

QT video clip at:

http://www.bigidea.com/videos/veggietales/vt022/clip04.htm

RFM

14 Sep 2005 09:31:21 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, "Fritz M"

Quoted message said:

Claire Petersky said:

http://www.capsteps.com/sounds/suv.ra (requires Real Audio)

That's pretty good :-)

Here's another catchy tune:

Oh oh, you and me
In our sport utility vehicles
Cruisin to 7-11
For a bag of Frito Lays

Oh oh, you and me
In our sport utility vehicles
We'll slam into four wheel drive
And pick up a dozen eggs

QT video clip at:

http://www.bigidea.com/videos/veggietales/vt022/clip04.htm

Here's the opening tune from the "Rocky Dino Opera"
http://bikesexual.org/dinos/opera.html

A MIGHTY FORTRESS
Key: G Tune: "Luther's Hymn"

A mighty fortress is my car,
My great strong box of steel,
My shiny sporty four-by-four,
My urban sex appeal.
This safe on wheels may crash
And small cars I may smash,
Some slobs may be dispatched
But I shall not be scratched,
My sport ute is my fortress.

The world can see how cool I am,
How excellent is my life-style.
All tongues proclaim the brands I buy
My choices are such high style.
Now get out of my way,
Bike bums in spandex gay
And stupid old ladies!
Leave the road to me
In my shiny fossil fortress!

© 2001-2004 Lee Henderson.
Licence granted for free performance and reproduction for study.
--
zk

Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:50:40 -0600, <[email hidden]>, Robert Uhl

Quoted message said:

Ambulances cost money.

I live about six blocks from a hospital. Does it make more sense to
drive the five minutes thereto or wait around for an ambulance which
will take longer to arrive?

TAXI
--
zk

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

brink said:

i think the inherent danger is in a person driving away with deflated
tire(s) without being aware of it.

I think the "Hey, I can get into my SUV without using the stepladder!"
effect would clue them in.

possibly. how many tires have been deflated, and which ones? and how much?
are we talking riding the rims or what? or are the rear (driving) wheels
merely at 20 PSI?

you'd be amazed at what people who aren't mechanically inclined or decent
drivers will tolerate unwittingly.

brink

gds said:

While SUV's get really bad press I imagine that in fact SUV's and pick
ups are the vehicles of choice for many environmentalists.
While tooling around central Paris or even downtown Chicago in an 6 mpg
Hummer is pretty sick, I think that many who consider themselves
environmentalists are involved in the types of outdoor activites for
which high clearance and 4wd are pretty important.
For myself I do a lot of back country hiking and rock climbing. Many of
the mountain roads that I use would be unpassable in a car. I will tell
you that my SUV does a lot less damage to roads and is a lot quieter
than the more fuel efficinet ATV's that wreak havoc in some of these
areas.

High clearance? Maybe. 4wd? I doubt it.

In 30-odd years of runnin' around the southern Appalachians (all the a's
are soft, thank you!), almost every time I hike up a trail, or wade down
a creek, and get to the point I think, "Nobody could possibly drive back
this far," there's a vehicle around the next bend. 2/3 of these are 20
year old Chevy or Ford sedans, and the rest are pickup trucks (at least
10 years old). The drivers don't go bouncing them around like they're
monster trucks. They probably contribute to erosion around the rocks
that are bigger than a foot tall by driving around them, but they get
plain old cars further back in the hills than a flatlander could believe.

The natural habitat of an SUV is a parking lot or freeway, when you can
tell THOSE two apart.

Pat

Quoted message said:

As a conservative estimate, I'd say 99% of SUV owners have no practical
need for the monstrosities. The trend is driven by a combination of
conspicuous consumption and stupidity.

- Frank Krygowski

A woman I know drives one of these things because she needs to haul
tents and stuff in it. Once a year. *Once* a year.

Yeah, real good reason to burn excessive amounts of fuel the rest of the
time...

OTOH, I know a disabled woman who drives one because it's the only
vehicle she can get into unassisted, plus there's room for her power
chair. Since she lives alone, the "unassisted" part is pretty important.

--

the black rose
Research Associate in the Field of Child Development and Human
Relations
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
2005 BOMs: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/blackrosequilts/my_photos

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

Zoot Katz said:

Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:50:40 -0600, <[email hidden]>, Robert Uhl

Quoted message said:

Ambulances cost money.

I live about six blocks from a hospital. Does it make more sense to
drive the five minutes thereto or wait around for an ambulance which
will take longer to arrive?

TAXI

*SPLUTTER*

Where do you live that a taxi arrives faster than an ambulance? Cuz I
can tell you, that would be nowhere near where I live.

--

the black rose
Research Associate in the Field of Child Development and Human
Relations
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
2005 BOMs: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/blackrosequilts/my_photos

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------