rmp
23rd May 2009, 03:20 PM
4x4 backlash: Owners of 100 Chelsea Tractors find their tyres slashed by environmental activists | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1186388/4x4-backlash-Owners-100-Chelsea-Tractors-tyres-slashed-environmental-activists.html)
My first reaction is that I'm thankful we don't have that sort of criminally militant idiocy in Australia, or at least not as widespread.
Vandalising property is wrong -- a subtle hint in that direction being it is against the law.
This attack is, by any sense of logic, far too general. These nutters typically "permit" some uses of 4WDs, farmers being one. However, who appointed them judge and jury for appropriate vehicle use? Even if there was a definition of appropriate vehicle use, how are they to know the 4WD with newly slashed tyres is not used to tow horsefloats only on weekends, or some other such "legitimate" use?
While it's good to see widespread condemnation of these actions, you can imagine the headlines if a group of offroaders went round to these hippie's places and slashed their sandals.
You may have noticed I do not use the term environmentalist to refer to these thugs. I believe a true environmentalist cares about the environment, but takes a pragmatic view of life and certainly doesn't resort to violence or cowardly criminal measures such as this to advance their point of view or coerce others into compliance with their way of thinking. Therefore, I do not degrade a true lover of the environment by referring to these criminals as environmentalists, any more that I'd refer to an armed robber as a shooting enthusiast.
I won't even begin on the argument that removing 4WD vehicles is all-important. Suffice it to say that changing over from 4WDs would have a tiny impact on "emissions", and any work in that direction would be better directed in myriad other ways where it would gain a much larger result for the same effort.
So is it effective? Sadly, I'd have to consider it is, to some degree. By stigmatizing 4WDs they are making people scared to buy one, which cancels out the short-term loss of needing to replace all those tyres early. If you knew there was a good chance your car would be vandalised it would have to be a factor in your purchase.
Of course, you'd also be tempted to buy an oversize rat trap and bait it with some freshly-made tofu, readily available from the nearest compost heap.
Over to you...
EDIT: And behold the fuel guzzling status symbol! (that'd be the car)
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/05/371.jpg
My first reaction is that I'm thankful we don't have that sort of criminally militant idiocy in Australia, or at least not as widespread.
Vandalising property is wrong -- a subtle hint in that direction being it is against the law.
This attack is, by any sense of logic, far too general. These nutters typically "permit" some uses of 4WDs, farmers being one. However, who appointed them judge and jury for appropriate vehicle use? Even if there was a definition of appropriate vehicle use, how are they to know the 4WD with newly slashed tyres is not used to tow horsefloats only on weekends, or some other such "legitimate" use?
While it's good to see widespread condemnation of these actions, you can imagine the headlines if a group of offroaders went round to these hippie's places and slashed their sandals.
You may have noticed I do not use the term environmentalist to refer to these thugs. I believe a true environmentalist cares about the environment, but takes a pragmatic view of life and certainly doesn't resort to violence or cowardly criminal measures such as this to advance their point of view or coerce others into compliance with their way of thinking. Therefore, I do not degrade a true lover of the environment by referring to these criminals as environmentalists, any more that I'd refer to an armed robber as a shooting enthusiast.
I won't even begin on the argument that removing 4WD vehicles is all-important. Suffice it to say that changing over from 4WDs would have a tiny impact on "emissions", and any work in that direction would be better directed in myriad other ways where it would gain a much larger result for the same effort.
So is it effective? Sadly, I'd have to consider it is, to some degree. By stigmatizing 4WDs they are making people scared to buy one, which cancels out the short-term loss of needing to replace all those tyres early. If you knew there was a good chance your car would be vandalised it would have to be a factor in your purchase.
Of course, you'd also be tempted to buy an oversize rat trap and bait it with some freshly-made tofu, readily available from the nearest compost heap.
Over to you...
EDIT: And behold the fuel guzzling status symbol! (that'd be the car)
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/05/371.jpg