Police question Hummer driver in road rage attack
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on January 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
(Photo © Jonathan Maus)
Just before noon today, police responded to tips about a blue Hummer H2 parked on the corner of SW Salmon and Broadway. The vehicle fit the description of the SUV that was involved in a road rage attack in Northwest Portland.
A reader named “BURR” left a comment about the vehicle just before 11:30 this morning. I rode over to the location to investigate and noticed the SUV parked at the NE corner of the intersection and a Portland Police squad car was already on the scene.
Just as the bike rider in Monday’s incident described, the Hummer had temporary plates (they were from “Vic Alfonso Cadillac Hummer”).
After several minutes of talking on his radio and peering into the SUV’s windows, Officer John Clinton (in photo above), told me he was running the information through the computer as per the ongoing investigation of Monday’s incident.
owner of the Hummer.
Clinton said since the case is not being treated as a felony assault (it’s an “assault 4″ case), he is not able to tow away the vehicle without further evidence. At this point, he was writing up the vehicle for a parking violation and said he left his card on the vehicle’s window in hopes that the driver would call him back.
A few minutes later, the owner of the Hummer showed up. He and Officer Clinton had a brief conversation and then the vehicle owner paid up his parking time and returned to the building he was in.
Once the owner of the Hummer left, Officer Clinton updated me on the situation. He said the Hummer owner claims he is not the man they are looking for and that he was home with his family in Vancouver (WA) at the time of yesterday’s incident. Clinton said the man told him he was downtown visiting his lawyer.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
January 24th, 2008 13:16
"Clinton said the man told him he was downtown visiting his lawyer."
I'm sure that visit has nothing to do with the road rage incident, right? Riiiiiiight... ;-)
January 24th, 2008 13:20
Now that they have a possible suspect, could they pull his DMV photo and put together a photo line up for the victim and the witnesses?
On a side note, no mention of whether the plates were OR or WA, but wouldn't there be another violation for registering his vehicle in OR since he admitted to being a WA resident?
January 24th, 2008 13:22
the original post said
"a balding man"
that man does not look too balding from the photo
January 24th, 2008 13:27
Hm-m-m. The cyclist-victim wont talk to the police or the news. The driver of the hummer that may coincidentally meet the description of the one the cyclist-victim claims was driven by a '30ish' balding man that threatened him with a baseball bat and knocked him down, claims he's not the man the cops are looking for. Claims he was home with his family at the time of the alleged altercation.
Well, I suppose we'll all just have to stay tuned. At least the hummer driver is talking to his lawyer. It may turn out he needs him if the truth happened to slip past him somehow.
January 24th, 2008 13:29
Just to clarify.. that's not true. The victim is talking with the police, he is just keeping his name out of the press for privacy reasons.
January 24th, 2008 13:39
So the officer writes the owner/driver of the vehicle a ticket, but lets him pay up his parking? So then two questions run through my mind...
Isn't there a max time limit per block of Portland? So why not make him 1)pay the ticket and then 2) pay for more parking time? He is not supposed to feel bad about questioning him about the incident, his vehicle matches the description of the vehicle in question.
Why no ticket for no plate/temp sticker?
I just don't get why this guy was able to walk away without more of a fine than a slap on the hand and forced to put more $$ in the machine. Hopefully his lawyer has a good talk with him.
January 24th, 2008 13:43
I have to say...DAMN YOU'RE FAST, MAUS!!
on scene, up to the minute reporting...you obviously beat the entire PDX news squad to a story..
January 24th, 2008 13:44
Jonathan, thanks for that clarification. I got that about the cyclist not co-operating, from comment #70 on the other thread, and didn't notice contradicting info in comment #74.
Vanessa seems to be right that the guy in the pic doesn't appear to be balding. That doesn't necessarily mean the wrong vehicle has been identified though. Someone else may have had temporary use of the vehicle. That person may be the perp.
January 24th, 2008 13:47
The attack happened on 1/21, not yesterday, according to the craiglist post.
January 24th, 2008 13:56
A Hummer, and a parking violation.
Wow.
What a surprise (again).
January 24th, 2008 14:07
When you buy a vehicle in Oregon, you have to pay WA sales tax when you register it in WA. 6% on 60,000 is a lot of loot!
While assault in the fourth degree does seem like the best fit for the incident as described, I wonder why 4th degree assault is a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html
January 24th, 2008 15:15
The victim apparently told police that there was no baseball bat involved. He never saw a baseball bat. That came from witnesses. There were also many other discrepencies that kept the "corporate" media from covering this. That said, keep up the good work Jonathan.
January 24th, 2008 15:38
"visiting his lawyer" Possibly a wise move. Stay tuned kiddies!
Thanks for being on top of this Jonathan
January 24th, 2008 16:27
#12 above, according to the victim's own e-mail: "I went back down to 23rd where there were people and he jumped out of his truck ran at me with a baseball bat and shoved me over and punched me in the face when I got up. "
Suspicious?
January 24th, 2008 16:29
An assualt charge on your record looks bad whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony. It's almost like how being charged for something and being found not guilty can look just as bad as being convicted.
January 24th, 2008 16:30
True, the individual in the photo doesn't seem to match the "balding" description, but royal blue + temp. plates fits very well, so maybe they should push on this lead a little more.
January 24th, 2008 16:33
Great Action, Great Job!
January 24th, 2008 17:00
BUMMER! Those SUVs are worethless excuses to have a self-inflated ego.
Way to be on the beat bikeportland!
January 24th, 2008 17:38
Humm,
If the incident happened as described, It should be an attempted assault in the first degree (trying to run the cyclist off the road/hit him with the vehicle), which would be a felony, as well as the assault in the fourth degree, (punching the cyclist).
January 24th, 2008 17:52
Nice work spotting this car, team! All I can say is that this case is under investigation. And it certainly stinks having to wait.
January 24th, 2008 20:06
The blue Hummer does indeed fit the description, but let's remember, friends: In our legal system, the accused are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
January 24th, 2008 23:58
the hummer there is an h3 the hummer involved was an h2(bigger)
January 25th, 2008 06:47
I think the PPB should start giving tickets to all Hummer owners... "Sir, you're vehicle is too big for the road. You're emitting more than your fair share of pollution and constraining our energy supply. Additionally, other road users are sustaining a greater risk of injury and even death because of your selfish choice to drive a military vehicle on our city streets."
January 25th, 2008 06:55
#22
Looks like an H2 to me...
January 25th, 2008 07:41
By the above picture, shouldn't this guy get a ticket for being too far from the curb? Imagine how far that fat pig of a gas guzzler is out in the street.
January 25th, 2008 08:52
woogie #2 - Ya. Let the wheels of justice come screeching to a halt!!! Let's just throw money at an investigation! Ya. Entitled biker vs. Entitled motorist = the constituency pays? Hurray for justice.
Joyce #9. Ya. This is an ALLEGED attack, hon. Remember that Constitution of the United States of America thingy that everyone is always going on about? Check out the 6th amendment sometime, would ya?
David Dean #11. Remember that a felony conviction bars the convicted from voting, possessing a firearm, and many other civil rights in this country. Assault IV is the fourth in a group of assault charges, and it is the only misdemeanor. Do you know that if you bump into some one on a sidewalk, on accident, that if the person you bumped into saw fit, they could allege an assault? Do you really think that it is fair to call that a felony?
Shelly #18. Jesus, jealous much? You do live in a free country, you know? Or do you? Your grasp of the language you were likely born speaking leaves a bit to be desired too. If what other people own makes you that nuts, you've got a problem much larger than entitled General Motors fans.
Tom #19. Ya. And if the incident DIDN'T happen as described, the victim should be charged, and prosecuted, for felony interference in a police investigation. Also they should be charged for the, 'spitting', as that is an assault IV in Oregon. Also, reckless endangerment, as their improper use of the public right-of-way, could have caused an accident. Innocent until proven guilty, man.
nerf #22. Ya. The Hummer in the picture is an H2, genius. Here is a pic of an H3. Clearly, you have the skills to be a Portland Police Officer.
Moo #25. Ya. Look, another jealous biker. What business is it of anyone's, what somebody else decides to drive, own, use, waste, eat, smoke, have sex with, and on, and on...? You don't like Hummers? Don't buy one. How dare you ridicule some one's choice in such a manner. You are further polarizing an issue that is already becoming much too divisive. It's a little easier to garner motorist sentiment without people like you, and Shelly #18, constantly hurling insults.
This whole thing cracks me up. I hope both of the idiots involved in this childish nonsense end up in trouble. That is usually how things like this turn out. Bet the authorities decide to give both of these brain-donors some hassle. Bet.
You all need to check yourselves. There are particulars about this situation that make it impossible to have even the first clue about what actually happened. Furthermore, conspicuous displays of wealth are not a crime. Why ridicule some one for their consumer choices, when you all are doing such a good job at taking the high-road, and living by example? Seriously. If you would like to see the world change, do it by example, and not by demand.
January 25th, 2008 08:59
LOL. then vance went and told all his online blogger pals about how he really stuck it to those "bikers" over at bike portland. have a nice day vance.
January 25th, 2008 09:21
Vance #26: "Remember that a felony conviction bars the convicted from voting...in this country."
That is not true. Ya.
January 25th, 2008 09:57
The issue with the Hummer in particular is that it has become a symbol of the excess of consumption in this country. When one sees a single driver on city streets with a sub 15 mpg beast, it just doesn't sit well with people who have an awareness of global issues.
January 25th, 2008 10:01
Vance,
Yes, an alleged attack with many witnesses.
Punching someone in the face and threatening them with a baseball is a far cry from bumping soemeone on a sidewalk.
Spitting on the street or on a vehicle is not assault.
Yes people should be able to drive what they want, we as a society should not be subsidizing bad decisions.
You can go check yourself now.
January 25th, 2008 11:09
Been outside much Vance?
January 25th, 2008 11:23
Jonathan, I just want to let you know that I myself (and I imagine a few others) am on the verge of never reading, much less leaving comments in the future. Without missing a beat every (excellent) article of yours is now followed by a steady flow of attacks on other comments and other people, both those who commute by bike and car.
But please continue keeping us up to date on this story!
January 25th, 2008 11:26
...And what a wonderful world it will be when everything is SH#32 approved.
January 25th, 2008 11:44
Sh-
You do not have to read the comments. Try it out sometime. The same thing works for alcohol, drugs and pornography. For that matter it works on the issues of gay marriage, hipsters and fat people.
Welcome to freedom. It is a messy affair, to be sure.
I agree with the colorful Vance on one issue for sure.
Why does everyone get so worked up over Hummers? There are countless other SUV's and the like on our streets. Hell, all the crap our economy runs on is floated across the Pacific on an ocean of burned diesel. (including our bikes and most Americans food).
Almost all the Hummers are built on a Chevy Suburban chasis. It is just a different shell on top. Do you all hate Suburbans with the same level of rancor?
Why not?
January 25th, 2008 11:47
Vance@#26
I'll give you a 3 out of 10 for that troll.
It's our business what other people drive when it's a prettied-up military vehicle that tears up the streets, pollutes and takes up more than its fair share of the road. It's a menace that endangers us. It's also my right to ridicule them for looking like a self-centered ass by driving one.
January 25th, 2008 13:20
Ramona Heights #35. Name one military application for the Hummer H2. Just one. You'll find that you are confusing it with another Hummer model called a Humvee. Subaru manufactures a military vehicle, why are you not slamming them? So does Suzuki, so does Mitsubishi, and Jeep. Ignorance? Oh, well that's okay, be sure to keep talking.
Moving on, why don't you also provide a legal definition for, 'fair', would ya. Look, you have an opinion which is all fine and good, but when that opinion becomes something upon which action is taken you've got another thing altogether. Let me spell this out in lefty-speak so you can understand it. Repeat your vitriol about conspicuous displays of wealth, only instead of the word, 'Hummer', use the word, 'gay', or, 'black', or, 'female', and see if you are starting to sound like anyone you know, k?
I'm trying to point out how readily everyone applies a stereo-type to the Hummer driver, on a biking blog; but then turns around and completely ignores many of the, just as accurate, cycling stereo-types. This isn't likely to be the big bad, money grubbin', Hummer drivin', troglodyte versus the helpless, innocent, cyclist. More than likely this is a case of a couple of egos, just like yours, one-upping each other until a false police report gets made.
Your, 'Menace', quip is another completely unqualified assertion. You have no idea what the data about that particular vehicle will reflect. I mean, you've already committed to producing inaccurate data on this particular model, why should I not suspect this statement is inaccurate as well? This argument also ignores the fact that if you feel threatened by Hummers, then go buy one for crying out loud! Oh, you can't afford it? Hmmm. Now I'm starting to wonder just why you have a bunch of misinformation about General Motors. You, and you alone are applying the personal choice bias. Judge away, but don't be surprised when free people have judgment that is different than yours.
What, like your little emo-uniform isn't all about making some statement to society? I'll bet guys that driver Hummers hate little dweebs on bikes. Some days, I'm not even surprised to see myself in agreement with Mr. Hummer.
January 25th, 2008 13:40
I seems to me the best defense in this situation would have been a cell phone with a camera. Could have called 911 and filmed the guy being an a$$hole...
And Vance, not everyone that gets harassed on a bike in this town is a little emo kid. I've been harassed a few times, but they usually speed away before I can confront them.
January 25th, 2008 13:44
And not everyone with the money or more accurately the credit rating wants to waste their hard-earned cash/credit on a fake off-road bling-bling pose-mobile status symbol like a Hummer.
January 25th, 2008 13:56
I just talked to BC, who said that he came upon the incident minutes after it happened and he and his wife said that they saw the driver with an aluminin bat in his hands
January 25th, 2008 14:16
The entire hummer phenomena is an exercise in hypocrisy and psychological imbalance. The entire world population today should be concerned with conservation, etc. etc. and then moron George Bush creates tax loopholes so people actually receive an incentive to buy energy wasting personality warping pieces of rolling crap like the Hummer. No person in their right mind needs to drive such a vehicle in the city.
I fully appreciate people's outrage with the Hummer. Such vehicles are 180 degrees from the kind of motor vehicles people should be encouraged to buy. They're just plain wrong. The Hummer is emblematic of contempt for social responsibility. As the as yet unidentified royal blue Hummer H2 driver exemplifies, the effect of this seems to aggravate the tendency for owners of such vehicles to feel justified in behaving like jerks towards other people on the road.
January 25th, 2008 14:26
Vance,
I'm unclear on why you think the victim is at fault here. He was on a bike and he was chased down by someone in a car. There were many witnesses! He tried to get away but the guy kept following him. What are we all missing here that you seem to think you know? The police are looking for the driver of the car, they don't seem to think this is a false report. If you have some facts that rest of us don't then please do share, otherwise quite making stuff up.
He was then threatened with a baseball bat and punched in the face and you think this is funny?
January 25th, 2008 15:03
What I have gathered from these comments.
All cyclists have emo-uniforms.
If you're driving a Hummer, and you chase someone attack them and then flee the scene of the crime it's likely their fault.
Everyone on this comment page is united and has the same opinions which are all equally opposed to whoever Vance is.
Vance has hard wood for people prostrating their middle-age mobiles as if they were rap stars.
Did I miss anything?
January 25th, 2008 15:13
Spitting is not assault 4. If you spit on someone, It would be harassment unless you had some disease, knew you had it, and the spitee caught it as a result of your spitting on them.
January 25th, 2008 16:45
Torfin #41 Yeah, cookies are good, wait wrong thread!
I'll agree with much of what Vance is saying. Mob mentality can often times do more harm than good, there is a lot of irrational thoughts flying around this thread that's just pure silliness. But not in a ha ha way.
Steve #34 Yup, hate Suburbans too. Especially with 24" spinners;-)
I think most of those gigantore vehicles that people buy are either for status or because they feel safer in them. Can't really fault either, I'm just more of a practical consumer myself. They are essentially tools and you don't use a 5lb sledge when carving wood. Proper tool for the job. Back home we had a neighbor that used to have a farm in the country. One of the farm vehicles he had was an eighty something lifted Suburban 4X4 diesel. It was a work horse. When he retired and moved to suburbia, he sold it and got a Volvo. That to me is logical. I 10mpg tank for weekly grocery shopping and taking the kids to school is not logical to me.
I'm sure not anti internal combustion engine, Hell, PIR is Holy ground for me! Love the smell of high octane gas pumping through high compression motors and being belched out of open exhaust systems at high RPM's at the end of the front straight! Once again, proper tool for the job.
January 25th, 2008 17:06
90% of the driving I do these days is to Mt. Hood Meadows. For that reason I don't apologize for owning a 4WD vehicle, which unfortunately gets poor gas mileage. It has nothing to do with being a status symbol.
January 25th, 2008 17:18
Obviously this is all a big misunderstanding. Being embarrassed over his baldness, he wanted to put his wig on before confronting the cyclist. Thinking it was his wig, he accidentally grabbed the baseball bat. Trying to fit the bat on his head, he ended up waving it around a bit. Turns out the wig was under the seat, and he found it later. Which is why he appears with a complete set of hair in the picture above.
January 25th, 2008 20:56
I personally hate people.
Here is a short list of who: Cyclists who blow through stop signs, making me look bad. Cyclists who look down on me for driving an SUV, even though it gets mileage not much worse than my newer Subaru Outback. BMW and Porsche drivers who think Skyline is their personal autobahn. Soccer moms driving anything while on their cell phone. All drivers attemting to text message someone while driving. Any cyclist who is a fan of claims to be all about saving the environment, and yet watches Nascar, IRL, or any other form of motorized racing. All those ef'n people I saw in court this week who needed an interpreter to fight their driving without a license charges. I hate Ford, Cadillac, Pontaic, Saab, BMW, Subaru, etc. for their ads perpetuating the drive as fast as you want on surface streets mindset.
Yeah, I hate people.
Oh, and I would buy a Hummer and turn it into a Biodiesel, and get much better mileage than most of you do. I guess as a cyclist, I should hate me too.
January 25th, 2008 21:29
Here's a good one to keep under your belt for when your bad guy isn't a bad guy but he still drives and parks a Hummer:
Under Portland’s city traffic code 16.20.130 (http://tinyurl.com/3al9pf), any vehicle taller than 6 feet is prohibited from parking within 50 feet of an intersection.
If big (>6ft... ahem... the h2...) old stupid-a55 SUVs obstruct your view making it dangerous for you to walk, ride, or drive Portland streets, call Parking Enforcement at (503) 823-5195 with the locations and license-plate numbers of offenders. Slap SUV sluts with a $40 parking fine - sweet icing for what must be atrocious gas receipts.
January 25th, 2008 21:53
Some estimated SUV heights, FYI:
Enclave - 6'1"
Sequoia - 6'1"
h3 - 6'2"
Lexus 470 - 6'2"
Range - Rover 6'3"
Yukon - 6'5"
Escalade - 6'7"
h2 - 6'7"
Tahoe - 6'7"
Sprinter - 8'11"
January 25th, 2008 22:48
Vance 26/36,
Its everyone's business Vance.
When you drive a vehicle that pollutes, thats everyone else's business.
You drive a vehicle that drinks gas? You're damn right that's everyone else's business! Supply and demand Vance! You're driving up the prices for your fellow Americans. But you don't care about that do you Vance?
No of course not. You're focused on Vance.
You're no Patriot Mister. Just another phoney flag waiver bent on spewing negativity.
I'd like to see you pedal around on a bicycle for a while Vance. I'll bet that'd take some wind out of your sails. And it would turn down the volume on your bluster. For a while anyway. But then later, you'd be back to the same old Vance. Right Vance? Yeah right!
That's what the ego does Vance. Justify itself with negativity. So rest assured, you'll keep doing it. Likely for the rest of your life. Its what you do best.
January 26th, 2008 01:16
This guy is obviously an idiot. The officer that talked to him should have tugged on his hair to make sure he's not wearing a wig.
You do have to be an idiot to pay for and own a Hummer of any size, but lets talk about the real symbol of destruction the Ford Excursion. The Excursion was unveiled by Ford only a few days after it had successfully fought off an attempt in Congress to close the loop hole that allows for such monstrosities to be purchased as passenger vehicles. Its just one stupid loop hole. Our politicians are the reason why Hummers and Excursions are on the road. As long as these vehicles are classified as trucks under US law, fuel emissions standards cannot be enforced.
Been to Mexico city lately? Or LA?
January 26th, 2008 01:20
Just came back from Mexico City.
US made SUV's are everywhere!
No emissions standards!
No DEQ!
No Breath! No Sperm! No Egg!
Comprende?
January 26th, 2008 08:07
Yes these vehicles in the city seem to be foolish sometimes...another law on the books of many cities is the restriction on vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or more (pavement protection). Some of these modern SUVs tip that scale.
Perhaps the irony here is that this Hummer2 was paid for by many bicyclist's federal taxes...if this (or other drivers) wrote it off as a business expense - under Bush43 incentivizing efforts. (Please help Earl B. overthrow this odd tax benefit!)
And with the new round of silly tax breaks going around now by congress...perhaps they should have just made the refunds applicable for food or buying bicycles...the true affordable urbane transport (other than shoes).
January 26th, 2008 11:26
Ye-e-e-s....a likely story...thank you Agent #46.
January 26th, 2008 11:53
Todd #53 The heaviest I found, without spending too much time, was the Ford Excursion at 7140lbs. That's pretty damn big, but you could strap a british two seater to the roof and still be well under the 10K limit. Not including any obscure European light military vehicles, did you have any specific SUV's in mind?
January 26th, 2008 13:40
Wow. Interesting debate. A Prius will kill a bicyclist just as dead as a Hummer, MG Suburban, Focus, Miata or all electric car.
Has it occurred to anyone that it is not the vehicle, but teh conduct of the driver that counts both as to endangering others and the level of pollution the vehicle may be responsible for?
If I drive a 1964 Chevy Suburban and I maintain it well and drive it little am I worse or better than the guy who drives a Prius and trades it in every two years?
What about the pollution entailed in manufacturing (and disposing of) the highly toxic battery in a Prius? Weigh that against driving an older car, the ultimate in "recycling" as that driver is squeezing everything he or she can out of a vehicle that was manufactured long ago. Isn't that better (setting aside mileage for a moment) than driving a new politically correct car? I don't know the answer.
If I own a suburban but drive it only when I need such a large vehicle (say I have three kids, and we are going camping, taking a large dog along, and will be traversing bad roads), and I drive a twenty year old Buick the rest of the time.
The point is that making generalizations about others based on one small bit of information is probably never a good idea.
It is a good idea to display decency and common courtesy to everyone we encounter in life, and I fear it is far too easy to get away from that in the netherland of the internet. Especially, apparently, when debating about perceived bad conduct, wastefulness, use of resources and endangering other road users.
January 26th, 2008 15:06
GLV wrote: "90% of the driving I do these days is to Mt. Hood Meadows. For that reason I don't apologize for owning a 4WD vehicle, which unfortunately gets poor gas mileage. It has nothing to do with being a status symbol."
Next time you're up at Meadows take a peek around. See those 2 wheel drive vehicles in the parking lot? They didn't get dropped off by helicopter.
If you must go up every day, a 2 wheel drive with studded tires will do about as well as your 4WD with studded tires - if your 4WD does not have studs, the 2WD will do better than your 4WD. I'd still carry chains even if you do have studs.
99% of people in the USA who own 4WD do not need it. There are some ranchers, loggers, Search and Rescue types who may NEED it. Less than 0.1% of the people in the metro area who own a 4WD have a NEED for one.
The result of all the waste? Wars for oil, scarcity of oil (the valuable fuel that runs every aspect our world economy), global warming, unsafe highways due to wastfully large vehicles killing people in fuel efficient vehicles, economic inefficiency, increased consumer debt, higher highway maintenance costs, high vehicle headlights peeking up over the median barrier on freeways and blinding you, etc, etc, etc. This list is just a start.
January 26th, 2008 22:52
I believe Spanky above makes a good point when he says the pollution output of a car is determined not only by the car but by the driving habits of the owner.
Unfortunately, most drivers of gas guzzlers do drive a lot and therefore are polluting a lot. Also, given the many tens of millions of gas guzzlers, even if ALL of them were driven just a few miles, it would still cut the fuel consumption in half if they were replaced by fuel efficent cars getting twice the mileage.
Or if bicycles replaced all those in urban area driving the pollution would drop to a small fraction of today's levels.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT, and with the full understanding that I HATE SUV's and MONSTER TRUCKS, I realize that this is a democracy and that the majority have spoken with their dollars: they are buying gas guzzling unAmerican, terrorist supporting, pollution belching, responsible citizen killing, jackass mobiles and they don't give a whit about the environment or the country in which they live. And I have no children and will be gone in 40 years so that is fine by me. Let 'em ruin it. I DO NOT CARE ANYMORE. I cared for a long time, screamed, yelled, tried to educate, tried to make a difference and my efforts had no effect whatsoever. It is done. The nation is in ruins in many ways and if it survives the economic/geopolitical turmoil for 10 more years I'll be very surprised. Dang it.
January 27th, 2008 06:50
From #56:
"A Prius will kill a bicyclist just as dead as a Hummer, MG Suburban, Focus, Miata or all electric car."
Oh really? Please post 1 instance in which a bicyclist was killed by an electric car.
"Has it occurred to anyone that it is not the vehicle, but teh conduct of the driver that counts both as to endangering others and the level of pollution the vehicle may be responsible for?"
No this is wrong. For starters, you don't mention the total lifecycle pollution of the vehicle which includes manufacturing and disposal/recycling.
"If I drive a 1964 Chevy Suburban and I maintain it well and drive it little am I worse or better than the guy who drives a Prius and trades it in every two years?"
This isn't about you.
"What about the pollution entailed in manufacturing (and disposing of) the highly toxic battery in a Prius? Weigh that against driving an older car, the ultimate in "recycling" as that driver is squeezing everything he or she can out of a vehicle that was manufactured long ago. Isn't that better (setting aside mileage for a moment) than driving a new politically correct car? I don't know the answer."
Okay, so now you bring up manufacturing and dispoal issues when it comes to the "highly toxic" Prius battery.
First, the battery isn't highly toxic. Its a low toxic battery compared to the lead acid batteries that have been around for almost 150 years.
By the way....peek under the hood of any gas powered car/truck/SUV, you'll find a toxic lead-acid starting battery. And more to the point, about as wasteful an application as could be. Used to start the gas engine. Otherwise, it does little more then sulphate away, thanks to the automaker's traditional and *primitive* alternator charging technology. Talk about stone knives and bearskins!
I'm really getting tired of the inferiority complexes of so many of my fellow Americans.
Get Over It. And stop blocking change with your negativity.
Get educated. Develop as a human being. And stop resenting your fellow Americans who you see as somehow better then you.
January 27th, 2008 09:01
#49 Sprinters are vans Missy.
January 27th, 2008 11:45
"Next time you're up at Meadows take a peek around. See those 2 wheel drive vehicles in the parking lot? They didn't get dropped off by helicopter."
You obviously weren't up there this weekend. People like me had a distinct advantage from a safety standpoint, and my personal safety is the most important thing to me. Although I will concede that they used slightly less gasoline that I did.
Re: studded tires. Do you know how much damage studded tires do to city streets? Answer: A lot. It's a big part of the reason our streets are in such bad shape. Their use should be banned in the city, not encouraged.
"99% of people in the USA who own 4WD do not need it."
I completely agree. And even many people who occasionally need it, like me, don't need it all the time. That doesn't make me a bad or selfish person. The size and garishness of 4WD vehicles has gotten way out of hand, but I don't drive one of those. Anti-SUV mania relies on gross generalizations.
So a smaller car is marginally less damaging than mine? With this statement
"(the valuable fuel that runs every aspect our world economy)"
you have conceded that SUVs aren't the problem. The asphalt we ride our bikes on is made from oil. The casing of the computers we are sitting in front of right now is made from oil. Any plastic components on our bikes are made from oil. SUVs are one symptom of a much, much larger problem and at best a convenient whipping boy for people who think they have all the answers. In reality, the gas that powers a Prius comes from the same refinery, and the same oil field, as the gas that goes into my Jeep.
And Mark, I know you weren't talking to me, but when you say
"For starters, you don't mention the total lifecycle pollution of the vehicle which includes manufacturing and disposal/recycling."
it just shows that you missed Spanky's point entirely. When s/he said
"If I drive a 1964 Chevy Suburban and I maintain it well and drive it little am I worse or better than the guy who drives a Prius and trades it in every two years?"
s/he was referring precisely to the lifecycle cost of the vehicle.
January 27th, 2008 13:15
"A Prius will kill a bicyclist just as dead as a Hummer, MG Suburban, Focus, Miata or all electric car." Spanky #56
Remember that news item from about a year ago where a woman(a lawyer as I remember) driving a Prius '..lost control of the vehicle..' drove down the sidewalk and ran into a couple pedestrians walking down the sidwalk? It was in the evening and I think this was close to where Beulaland is...S.E. 39th and Burnside? Wonder how that case turned out.
January 27th, 2008 19:38
1. 21 Speed,
I am sorry you feel that way.
Yes many have spoken with their dollars. If it is a majority as you say, and a Democracy as you say, it makes for an interesting outcome: that the American people are simply flat out wrong.
Often its implied in the way politicians and others talk, that the American people can do no wrong. Simply looking back on history though, reveals how fallacious that notion is.
I don't think its over yet.
2. GLV:
No thats incorrect. I wrote "lifecycle pollution" , not "lifecycle cost."
Lifecycle pollution isn't just about what one driver, or series of drivers, does or doesn't do. Spanky doesn't
mention that.
The bottom line is, the physical attributes of the vehicle matter. Size matters. Weight matters. Cross-sectional area matters. If you don't believe me, try tying a 4'x8' piece of plywood to the front of your bicycle and see how you like the added weight, and pedaling around trying to push all that air out of the way.
A large SUV does more damage and harm at the same speed then a small car. Just observe, as i do, the blast wave that it creates as it drives down a residential road at 25mph and more.
When drivers rage and roar thru a neighborhood on an otherwise quiet residential street, grossly exceeding the 25 mph speed limit, and do it over and over again, that speaks for itself.
One thing's for sure, you and i sure don't see many bicyclists doing that!
See....this is about the abuse of power. So many Americans are uptight about the abuse of political power. But really, the bulk of the damage is being done by Americans themselves.
Arguments about where to draw thresholds are disingenuous. 8000 lbs, 7000 lbs, 6000 lbs?
The point is, as a matter of good public policy, you start with the most extreme vehicles and work backwards. Its a dynamic process. Overshoot one way, and a correction can be made later.
January 28th, 2008 00:07
GLV said:
"In reality, the gas that powers a Prius comes from the same refinery, and the same oil field, as the gas that goes into my Jeep."
True, but the difference is that if everyone were driving fuel efficient cars, less oil drilling in sensitive areas like ANWR would be considered. Also, it would give our nation and the world more time to come up with an alternative to oil. If that doesn't happen fast enough the resulting crisis will make all of the world crises to date seem like a Sunday picnic.
The 1964 Chevy Suburban will pollute so badly that it cannot be followed due to the stench of unburnt gasoline being spewed into the air. Get behind one and prove it to yourself.
Here I am again trying to educate people who can't be educated. Dang it.
January 28th, 2008 00:18
GLV wrote:
"Anti-SUV mania relies on gross generalizations."
Wrong. Anti-SUV mania relies on basic common sense and knowledge of the facts.
GLV wrote: "In reality, the gas that powers a Prius comes from the same refinery, and the same oil field, as the gas that goes into my Jeep."
Not necessarily true. The oil fields at ANWR may not need to be ruined if everyone shuts down their gas hog and drives a fuel efficient vehicle. That may also give our nation and the world more time to find an alternative to oil for vehicles. If that alternative is not found in time, the resulting crisis will destroy the world economy.
Driving a 1964 Chevy? Not recommended - it spews enough unburnt gasoline to gag anyone within 1/4 mile behind it.
Here I am again wasting my time trying to educate people who cannot be educated.
January 28th, 2008 08:56
GLV wrote:
"Anti-SUV mania relies on gross generalizations."
21 speed wrote (twice, apparently):
"Here I am again wasting my time trying to educate people who cannot be educated."
Thank you for proving my point.
January 28th, 2008 09:57
stop feeding the trolls
January 28th, 2008 14:30
So much anger. Say Ohm a few times, and take a deep breath.
Most of my questions were rhetorical. But I will admit a 1964 (no I don't own one!) Suburban was a bad example. I don't even know if they were being made back then for cryin out loud.
And don't forget to Smile and Have a Nice Day!
January 29th, 2008 10:41
Spanky (#56) the Suburban has been around since 1936, as a truck-based station wagon doing station wagon type duty in adverse conditions (bad or non-existent roads, large cargo weights, all protected from the elements) for most of its history. more here http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=46027
When used as originally intended the 'Burban was a nice vehicle. But like any vehicle used outside its niche it is wasteful and inefficient.
Opus
January 29th, 2008 15:41
I see far more SUVs in the ditch on 26 than front wheel drive vehicles. I'd take my Jetta in the snow over a Tahoe anyday unless you've got to go off road for some reason (which you don't when you drive up to Mr Hood). It's lighter, gets good traction, and my airbags provide plenty of safety. SUV's are a marketing miracle that needs to be corrected. And it will - just give it time.
And Hater - just because a Hummer runs on biodiesel doesn't automatically mean it gets great gas mileage or is pro-environment. 100% biodiesel in the winter isn't practical in Oregon so you've got to run a blend of 80% regular diesel in order to get the best MPH. And it will still get crappy mileage.
January 29th, 2008 23:32
Spanky (#68),
"So much anger. Say Ohm a few times, and take a deep breath."
Om is good.
But why take a deep breath when the air is polluted?
How much anger? Look who's causing the anger. The onus is on the owner/drivers, and manufacturers of the behemoths.
"And don't forget to Smile and Have a Nice Day!"
Look who's wrecking the nice day. Those who race, rage, and roar their oversized, menacing vehicles with their blacked out windows so you can't see the faces of the sometimes angry drivers with evil on their minds.
Nope, there is no running away from this issue. If some get their way, they'll be no roadless areas left on planet Earth. All will be accessible by giant SUV. This issue is worth fightin' for tooth and nail. The doers of evil must be confronted and dealt with.
January 30th, 2008 10:19
HHRabbit #60: Clearly Sprinters are vans. That was a very thoughtful insight on your part, esp. since I took time researching and creating my post (#48,49). I thought it was rather informative, and relevant to the discussion only in that I observed this fellow's parking job from the posted photographs. In his case he couldn't be ticketed for it, but it shows that he probably doesn't know he's not supposed to park w/i 50ft of most intersections. I thought probably MOST people don't know this. It's nice to be able to see around a corner as you approach.
Anyway, semantics: Meh, overrated. And, who you calling "MISSY?"
February 1st, 2008 13:19
Vespa-
You miss the point.
And I ask you to name one vehicle that is truly "pro-environment". Oxy-moron. Everything has a negative impact, and yes, I realize that the point is to minimize that impact.
Why are you trying to maximize MPH?
I can only assume that your Jetta is a diesel and runs a bio blend.
Do you own a Vespa? Terribly polluting little vehicles in comparison to the electric scooters. And their gas mileage sucks too. You must hate the environment. Lets burn you at the BikePortland stake!
February 8th, 2008 00:04
Did they ever catch this person?
Do we know if they TRIED to catch them?
February 17th, 2008 18:01
Someone in the Portland area who gives more of a damn than the cops seem to just needs to pour some sugar in the gastank and be done with it.
February 18th, 2008 10:49
I beleive that the person in question has been caught.