Tyre Extinguishers, the activist group that targets SUVs due to the damage the vehicles cause to the environment as well as the risk they pose to vulnerable road users including cyclists struck again in London last night, letting the air out of the tyres of 120 vehicles and leaving behind leaflets explaining to the owners why they had taken the action.
The direct action group, one of whose members we interviewed in the latest edition of the road.cc Podcast, undertook its latest direct action intervention in several affluent areas of the capital – namely Hampstead, Primrose Hill, Paddington and Kensington.
The group is calling for “bans on SUVs in urban areas, pollution levies to tax SUVs out of existence, and massive investment in free, comprehensive public transport. But until politicians make this a reality, Tyre Extinguishers’ action will continue,” they add.
According to Department for Transport figures, some 74 per cent of SUVs are registered to owners with addresses in cities, and affluent boroughs in the capital account for six in 10 sales of such vehicles.
A spokesperson for Tyre Extinguishers said: “We are facing the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. The climate crisis is an existential emergency.
“To safeguard a habitable world, we need to move off of fossil fuels as fast as possible. As the Just Stop Oil campaign has exposed, the first step is to stop all new fossil fuel licenses. This is a basic, common sense policy for meaningful climate action.
“This action was taken because removing SUVs from urban areas is a necessary part of reducing unnecessary fossil fuel demand, supporting the energy transition, and securing a habitable world.
“Three quarters of these ‘off-road’ vehicles are purchased by people living in towns or cities. We cannot allow SUVs to continue the incineration of our planet. Owning an SUV is dangerous. It can no longer be accepted.
“Just Stop Oil, Just Stop SUVs,” they added.
Besides London, the movement – which similar to Critical Mass has no formal organisational structure and has supporters worldwide – has previously targeted SUVs in UK cities including Brighton & Hove and Edinburgh, and further afield in places including Zurich in Switzerland and Colorado in the US, and has also received requests for its leaflets to be translated into languages including French and Italian.
236 thoughts on “Tyre Extinguishers strike again, targeting SUVs in wealthy London areas”
“The group is calling for
“The group is calling for bans on SUVs in urban areas, pollution levies to tax SUVs out of existence, and massive investment in free, comprehensive public transport.”
The latest climate research shows that we need to take emergency action now, not in ten years, so the position of Tyre Extinguishers is entirely justified, and the problem is the government, which dare not upset SUV drivers, who, I’m pretty sure, vote tory to a man and woman. Such a pity that climate change will affect the poor so much more than the rich, who are more responsible for the problem.
It’s a bit like Insulate Britain; everyone knows that they are right, but the government just can’t admit it, with their latest strategy for reducing climate change ignoring home insulation completely.
We’ve had all the warnings, getting more and more graphic with every report, and the government acknowledging that the situation is an emergency, but not treating it as one, with the complete lack of bravery and morals for which this government is justifiably famous. Never mind, Boris is in India, setting up a trade deal that will solve everything, including partygate.
Bullshit. It’s the politics
Bullshit. It’s the politics of envy and has nothing to do with climate change it’s pathetic and small minded.
If they actually cared about climate change or cyclist safety they’d be doing it to lorries but they don’t they are just grandstanding at an lazy target.
Lorries are useful, suvs less
Lorries are useful, suvs less so
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I don’t particularly support this group’s actions, I would if I thought they would achieve anything but I don’t think they will, but politics of envy? People protesting about excessive fossil fuel consumption and selfish unnecessarily large vehicles are really doing it because they want those things for themselves? Come on.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
— Secret_squirrelWhy would anyone envy arrogance and stupidity?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
How do you know that?
You don’t, so it’s you that is spouting bullshit.
From what they say the aim is reducing the harm done by unnecessarily large vehicles in cities – pollution, potholes and increased danger to all road users. Try listening to the podcast segment.
I unfortunately see SUV drivers every day while commuting. They generally exhibit a greater degree of ‘entitlement’, are more likely to drive aggressively, it’s as if they think they own the road and that those nuisance cyclists should get out of their way. The contrast in behaviour compared with drivers in smaller cars is striking. Even though many of the ones I see live in the countryside they really don’t need 4-wheel-drive or use a panzerwagen to drop their child off at the school gate or do the shopping.
The vehicles I see only get muddy when they meet a tractor and have to drive on the verge (perhaps because they often don’t want to reverse). That causes significant damage to smaller roads, especially in winter.
I drive a small hatchback car (and have done so for nearly 40 years) so you can dismiss me as making this up because I am jealous but you would be 100% wrong.
If people think this group’s actions are wrong – and I’m undecided myself – then I would pose two questions:
Why are you so sure that non-violent direct action does not work?
And what do you think is needed to bring about real, meaningful change?
At the moment the extraction and use of fossil fuels is actively being encouraged, not discouraged, by government all over the world. That is by far the biggest crime against humanity, with the most serious consequences of all. Letting air out of a few car tyres… hmmm, not even remotely comparable, I’d argue.
Simon E wrote:
Instructions:
“Target posh / middle-class areas.”
Directly from their own website.
Rich_cb wrote:
Just a guess, but I’d say that’s where 95% of the SUVs live.
If Cardiff is anything to go
If Cardiff is anything to go by I’d say they are far more widespread than that.
People buy SUVs purely to
People buy SUVs purely to satisfy their own vanity and to make themselves feel important. Those are not good justifications, and it ought to be an easy decision to ban them from urban areas.
Lorries are useful, in that they deliver goods, including food to supermarkets. We should develop a strategy for last-mile deliveries and avoiding peak times, but at least lorries serve a useful purpose.
Can we just be clear that
Can we just be clear that although the city SUV is a super poingent case in point, the same arguments of vanity, insecurity, bullying, etc apply equally to them in rural areas.
It might be better to say
It might be better to say that by targeting SUVs, the ‘Tyre Extinguishers’ leave themselves open to being accused by Daily Fail readers and Jeremy Clarkson fans of envy of the rich. That’s a nice and simple knee jerk reaction, doesn’t take any thinking about: an important factor in some people’s ‘politics’.
And another thing…can’t help thinking it’s a bit childish, just letting tyres down as a protest. It’s likely just to infuriate the owners and entrench them even deeper in their climate change denial (if that is their stance, of course they might be just ignorant), and make them ever more anti climate change protests. Maybe make them determined to drive their gas guzzlers even more, just to say ‘up yours’ to the crusties (Boris’s term, not mine).
How was the Australia trip
How was the Australia trip Burt?
Rich_cb wrote:
Interesting. In five days in Adelaide, I saw maybe ten commuting cyclists, and cycle facilities were, to say the least, basic.
Glad it was interesting.
Glad it was interesting.
Wouldn’t want you to travel nearly 10,000 miles (by plane?) for something dull.
Rich_cb wrote:
The point of the journey wasn’t to examine the cycling situation in Australia, it was to meet the daughter I didn’t know I had. I haven’t flown anywhere for ten years, but this was exceptional.
I hope the meeting went well.
I hope the meeting went well.
If you can justify an incredibly environmentally damaging trip because of your personal circumstances then it seems a bit hypocritical to deny that option to SUV owners.
Rich_cb wrote:
I didn’t choose the plane and there is no other realistic option for getting there; SUV drivers choose to have a vehicle which is much more polluting than other options, and use it for less than necessary trips. You might consider that flying to see my only offspring at the age of 70 hypocritical, and I respect your opinion, even if I don’t share it.
eburtthebike wrote:
A friend of mine emigrated to Brisbane several years ago, and sometime afterwards, his dad (was somewhere around 80, I believe) went to visit him, but chose to go via ship – took him around 3 months or so. I think he just liked the idea of taking his time and enjoying the journey.
I think an individual’s use of a plane is way down the list of problems, especially when you consider that planes make completely empty trips just to keep their airport passes. (I have to say that as I’ve visited Brisbane a few times).
Also, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/12/greenhouse-gas-emissions-must-peak-within-4-years-says-leaked-un-report:
Time to eat the rich
I think emissions from
I think emissions from flights are a big problem.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Undoubtedly – the fuel isn’t even taxed!
What I was getting at is that there’s no point complaining at Burt taking an unusual flight, but we need to go after the bigger issues first.
Meanwhile, Bristol Airport expansion plans were given the go-ahead
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-60233982
I think Burt must have taken
I think Burt must have taken a private plane is the only insinuation I can see being made by Rich_CB. If he hadn’t have taken that flight, the plane wouldn’t have flown.
You can make the same comment
You can make the same comment about every commercial flight on the planet.
Either people taking commercial flights are contributing to climate change or they’re not?
Which is it?
The wealthiest top 10%
The wealthiest top 10% globally includes pretty much the entire population of the UK.
It’s not the fact that you
It’s not the fact that you made the choice to fly that is hypocritical.
I’d likely have made the exact same choice given your circumstances.
It’s the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that other people’s choices may also be driven by their personal circumstances.
Rich_cb wrote:
Since I have never refused to acknowledge that, I’m more than slightly baffled by your assertion; unless you’re a bogan.
Yet you declared SUV drivers
Yet you declared SUV drivers ‘arrogant and stupid’ in this very thread?
Is there not a single set of circumstances in which someone may need such a vehicle?
Rich_cb wrote:
Sorry, I’ve given up pointless arguing with holier-than-thou sanctimonious preachers for lent, or some other religious festival.
Strange that your newfound
Strange that your newfound abstinence coincided exactly with being proven wrong.
Enjoy your religious festival Burt.
Rich_cb wrote:
Don’t you think you’re taking this a bit far?
Car Delenda Est wrote:
I’m afraid he’s rather famous for taking things too far.
You need to make your mind up
You need to make your mind up.
Either you recognise there is a climate problem, and you start to change your habits (and perhaps encourage other people to do the same); or you don’t recognise there’s a problem, in which case you should wind your neck in and stop criticising other people.
I do recognise there is a
I do recognise there is a problem.
I’ve adjusted my life accordingly.
I also recognise that, whether we like it or not, fossil fuels are vital to our transition to a net zero society.
Well thank you for being
Well thank you for being proactive / taking a view on the future.
Our predicament is inherently not “fair”. So the richest / those using the most energy / resources and in general emitting the most (don’t forget electricity is still mostly “emit elsewhere”) will in many cases see the least direct change. (I think anyone in the UK earning more than the minimum wage is effectively in the global “richest” bracket and you don’t have to earn much more to be in the elite). And it’ll be the rich who consume the most “transitioning”. (Do you have minerals we need for our batteries / e-vehicles? Better supply them to us and quick!)
The feedback loop is extended in time too. We might be able to die very cosily without needing to change much.
Likely we in the UK will see indirect change sooner e.g. prices / more migration. Probably that is hard to pull out from all the other events and situations driving change however.
eburtthebike wrote:
I don’t understand why Australians are so blasé about climate change when it seems likely that Australia will become even more inhospitable. If the wet-bulb temperature exceeds 31°C for long periods then it’ll only be possible for humans to live in climate controlled conditions although Australia doesn’t tend to have high humidity, so maybe they won’t be the first casualties.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Almost every day I was there, reports were coming in about the floods in NSW, which killed people, destroyed homes and infrastructure, and most commentators said was at least partly due to climate change.
I think it’s really important
I think it’s really important for publications such as this to distance themselves from illegal activists, no matter how people feel about it personally. The last thing we need is more fuel on the fire (no pun intended) of hatred towards cyclists — “you jump the lights *and* let tyres down”.
Troon wrote:
Really? Without commenting on this particular group, as a general principle that would be cowardly, if one believes a cause is just then one should support those who take action on its behalf. Numerous groups that history has shown to be in the right – suffragetes, for example – were “illegal activists” at the time.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You’re saying the ends justify the means?
Sriracha wrote:
That phrase has obviously become discredited by its use by evil people, but sometimes the end does justify the means, e.g. the Black Rights movement in America achieved the end of removing official racial discrimination by the means of peaceful civil disobedience, I don’t think many would disagree that end justified those means, would they?
Really? Don’t you like to
Really Troon? Don’t you like to think that if Guy Fawkes was around now that publications would show him a bit of support?
Welsh boy wrote:
“The last man to have entered Parliament with honourable intentions.”
Troon wrote:
That sounds rather like demanding that ‘the Muslim community’ condemn the actions of Islamic extremist groups.
Road.cc isn’t promoting or condoning their activity – only reporting it. And it’s quite possible to do that in a way that understands, and perhaps even sympathises with, their motivations, without necessarily endorsing the means.
Silly analogy.
Silly analogy.
Nobody has asked road.cc to condemn anything.
The question is why is road.cc publicising this group?
Does this story have anything directly to do with cycling?
Rich_cb wrote:
Troon literally did just that.
They’re not ‘publicising’ them – they’re reporting a thing that happened within their area of interest. It is related to cycling, because the aims of the group are to change our choices off transport mode, including advocating for more cycling as part of that.
“Distance themselves” ≠
“Distance themselves” ≠ condemn.
There’s a tangential link to cycling at best.
As others have said this is just the politics of envy with a wafer thin veneer of environmentalism.
Hair splitting. Demanding
Hair splitting. Demanding that someone ‘distance themselves’ from something is an implicit demand for condemnation.
Regardless, the point remains that road.cc (or any other publication) shouldn’t be under any obligation to proactively do either, and shouldn’t be implied to share in the responsibility for the group’s acts if they do not, as Troon’s post suggested they should.
That’s nonsense.
That’s nonsense.
Road.cc can distance themselves from this group simply by not directly publicising their activities.
Do we assume that road.cc condemn every single thing that they don’t cover?
Of course not.
Ergo distance themselves ≠ condemn.
You’re not going to persuade people of your argument by vandalising their property and possibly endangering their safety.
Rich_cb wrote:
The Russians seem to think it works though and certainly Mr. Assad would concur…
It’s not me making silly
It’s not me making silly arguments here. That’s clearly not what’s meant by ‘distance themselves’, and to suggest it is is risible.
Even if it was, it’s still a silly demand. Just as we don’t assume that road.cc don’t condemn every single thing that they don’t cover, we (at least the reasonable ones among us) don’t assume that they approve of every single thing that they do cover.
Should they ‘distance themselves from abusive and dangerous behaviour on the roads by not covering that? Or from bike theft, by not covering that? Should there be a media blackout on Russia’s war in Ukraine because news outlets should be ‘distancing themselves’ from that? Of course not – it’s complete nonsense.
If you prominently and
If you prominently and uncritically cover the actions of a group and allow them to present the justifications for their actions unchallenged then unfortunately you’re going to give the impression that you are in some way supportive.
Contrast the coverage of this group with the coverage of abusive and aggressive drivers. Do road.cc allow said drivers to justify their behaviour entirely unchallenged. No.
Do road.cc only present the perspective of the drivers and not the victims? No.
If road.cc had produced a balanced article which also discussed the negative impact of the campaign and even contacted some of those who had been targeted to hear their side then perhaps you could say they were just reporting the news.
As it is they’ve just allowed road.cc to be used as a mouthpiece for this particular group when the connection to cycling is tenuous in the extreme.
The only logical conclusion is that road.cc is supportive of this group and wants to help them.
Rich_cb wrote:
Road.cc isn’t primarily an investigative journalism organisation – it’s more an aggregator of stories. And this isn’t an in-depth feature on the merits or otherwise of direct action – it’s a short report about a specific action that happened. Its standard practice with these is simply to repeat the bare facts of what happened and whatever quotes are available to them.
Funnily enough, people who carry out abuse and aggression on the roads aren’t generally particularly forthcoming with with useful quotes to accompany a story. When they do, though, road.cc generally do publish them as they stand without commenting on them (not that they would need to, because commenters below the line can be relied on to tear them apart).
Only if you have a particularly one-eyed view of the situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._A
Let’s find ourselves an
Let’s find ourselves an example shall we:
https://road.cc/content/news/alliance-british-drivers-takes-sheffield-police-292183
Road.cc appear to have published a quote from the ABD.
They have sought out quotes opposed to that point of view.
They have also found quotes from the police which undermine the ABD’s position.
They have also described the ABD in negative terms.
It appears that road.cc is perfectly capable of doing more than just repeating quotes from organisations.
In that context the entirely uncritical coverage given to Tyre Extinguishers looks entirely deliberate.
Rich_cb wrote:
Nice try.
Nice try.
The simple fact is that road.cc is perfectly capable of providing balance and context even if it is just a bunch of tweets.
They made the deliberate decision not to do so for the Tyre Extinguishers story.
If road.cc is making a deliberate effort to portray one organisation negatively and providing entirely uncritical coverage of another it’s not difficult to deduce the editorial stance.
Nice try, but you have no
Nice try, but you have no idea what material was available to them on the Tyre Extinguishers item, or what, if any, deliberate selection decisions were made. And one cherry-picked example that doesn’t even demonstrate what you claimed it did does not a counter-argument make.
In any case, it’s all a bit irrelevant, because we strayed off the original point. You’re now arguing that road.cc is displaying bias in favour of the group. Regardless of whether that’s true (and, to an extent, that’s always going to remain a matter of opinion), the remedy for that is to be more neutral. That’s a whole different thing to ‘distancing themselves’ from them, which was the original demand.
I’m sure it would have been
I’m sure it would have been impossible to find a single tweet opposing the Tyre Extinguishers…
It literally takes 30 seconds to find multiple examples.
Therefore the decision to omit any balance was obviously a deliberate one.
The original request was for road.cc to ‘distance themselves’ from Tyre Extinguishers.
You suggested the coverage of Tyre Extinguishers was merely standard road.cc reporting. That has been demonstrated to be false.
By providing uncritical coverage (that is not provided to other groups) and by providing additional publicity via their podcast road.cc has made it obvious that there is editorial support for the group.
To suggest otherwise is either hopelessly naïve or deliberately disingenuous.
Rich_cb wrote:
This is somewhat rich (ha!) coming from someone who almost never comments on cycling matters but is quite happy to run threads over dozens of pages regarding Brexit and other rightwing hobby horses. If you truly believe this site should be cycling only, 99% of your comments should never have been made.
We need to remove these
We need to remove these dangerous and climate-destroying vehicles from our towns and cities.
People buy them to satisfy their own vanity, which is not a good reason to hasten our trajectory to an uninhabitable planet.
I understand that the
I understand that the illegality of this act is a bit of a grey area.
I was wondering if they might be using tools, crouching there using the pointy bit of my tyre lever would probably take too long. It appears there are things out there called Schrader depressors, handily available in packs of 10 too…
They advise using lentils.
They advise using lentils.
I thought that was rather apt.
Eh from a senior prosecutor
Eh from a senior prosecutor friend it’s not grey at all, it’s pretty clear cut criminal damage. Mens rea is easy to establish.
Intent is easy.
Intent is easy.
To inconvenience maybe.
It’s the damage that might be difficult.
A few minutes effort with a foot pump, how could anyone possibly cope.
Only if the tyre wasn’t
Only if the tyre wasn’t damaged can a foot pump be used and how many homes have a foot pump handy?
ErnieC wrote:
I would suggest the number with foot pumps is lower than those who are members of AA / RAC, so the there is a possibility of their actions increasing traffic and emissions.
SUVs in cities with parking
SUVs in cities with parking on both sides of a narrow road is a problem simply because these vehicles are too big, but targetting SUVs because they believe they are the worse offenders for using fossil fuels is also misguided. My seldom used SUV does more urban miles per gallon than my mates sports bike he uses to get to work.
Muddy Ford wrote:
— Muddy FordTwo wrongs don’t make a right.
Also bikes don’t cause
Also bikes don’t cause congestion and cause very little wear on the road.
eburtthebike wrote:
True. But both the motorbike and the SUV fulfill a purpose that is completely different. My mate can get through the city much easier than I could in the SUV, but he can only take one person with him whereas I could take 5 people with their luggage. There are valid reasons to demonise an SUV, but if fuel consumption is the only reason then it needs to be expanded to include any vehicle that doesn’t meet the required efficiency. That efficiency should include what it can carry. I use my most efficient form of transport (cargo bike) whenever I can, but sometimes the SUV is needed.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Yes. But a lot of the time neither of you will use that capacity or even close to it.
I agree, cars should not just be taxed heavily on fuel consumption grounds, but also on size, noise, weight and pollution, both gases and particulates of fuel combustion and rubber and brake pads. Add in the pollution from making these mostly pointless posemobiles as well.
If you want to include efficiency based on carrying capacity, you’re going to have to judge how that capacity is used, as most of the time, SUVs are just towing pointless metal about with just one occupant.
Frankly most SUVs are the Raleigh Grifters of the car world and just as pointlessly styled.
More like a Raleigh grifter
More like a Raleigh grifter dragging around another 4 mostly pointless Raleigh grifters and a trailer, just in case.
I was always a fan of the Raleigh bomber myself.
The unfortunate victims of this heinous crime will at least have to look up the recommended tyre pressures, and attain them, meaning better efficiency and handling. As I understand it, and my knowledge on this is sparce, the tyre pressure monitors in car only show anything once dangerously low.I read 25%. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
ktache wrote:
I’ve only used cars where you look up the pressures in a handbook and measure with a gauge. My understanding is that the automatic systems have a lot of false readings so are mostly ignored…
Based on a sample of 4 cars
Based on a sample of 4 cars in the family from different manufacturers the TPMS actually shows a warning light when pressure has gone down by about 5 psi, this is enough to be significant and a conscientious person would want to resolve the issue, at least at the end of a short journey, but the tyre doesn’t look flat at that point so I can see why they may be ignored as faulty.
Muddy Ford wrote:
You could also take five people and their luggage in a standard hatchback, couldn’t you, using less fuel and posing a lower risk to pedestrians and cyclists? You’d actually even be posing less risk to your passengers, a passenger inside an SUV is actually 11% more likely to die in an accident than a passenger in a standard car.
Rendel Harris wrote:
there are lies, dammed lies and statistics, if you choose carefully who you sit beside as a passenger you are unlikely to die whatever vehicle they happen to be driving. Surely this statement is just like the press blaming the vehicle for the ‘accident’?
Backladder wrote:
No, nothing like it. Not sure what point you’re trying to make, if you’re driven by someone who’s less likely to crash you’re less likely to be in a crash?
Rendel Harris wrote:
The point is that (assuming a roadworthy vehicle) the driver is by far the most important consideration for safety rather than vehicle type and that I suspect your ‘SUV 11% more dangerous’ statistic is missing some caveats.
Backladder wrote:
See my reply to Chris Hayes below for a fuller explanation of the stats. But yes, of course safer driving is the most important factor in preventing injuries and fatalities. However, until there are no cars on the road at all there will always be incidents, and if with one vehicle type fatalities are significantly more likely (hugely more likely for those in other vehicles or walking and cycling) then that must be a cause for concern. One factor being more important than another doesn’t mean one should disregard the lesser factor, e.g. would you say because safer driving that avoids incidents is the most important factor we can forget about having safety cages or seatbelts?
Seatbelts may be a step too
Seatbelts may be a step too far but I would love to be able to buy a car without the safety cage, side intrusion, airbags and all the other safety related kit which just sits there passively for the life of the car wasting fuel because it is being carried around. Check out the scrapyards and the vast majority of this kit is never used and if drivers did not have it providing them with a sense of invulnerability they might take more care. It would make cars lighter, more fuel efficient and probably more interesting to drive, the most fun I ever had in a car was in a lotus 7 fitted with a motorbike engine which weighed about 450kg.
Backladder wrote:
Or not far enough. how about no seatbelts, very weak seat brackets and a 10 inch rusty spike in the centre of the steering wheel? It would finally make drivers feel the same danger every car journey puts others in.
Safe drivers would drive even more carefully and dangerous drivers, well, there would be less of them on the road every day. Win win!
Oh, and a bonus would be walking, cycling and public transport suddenly becoming very appealing to drivers.
…whereas Michelin says that
…whereas Michelin says that… ‘In fact, research has found that an SUV driver or passenger is at least 50 percent more likely to survive a car crash without suffering serious injuries than an individual riding in a saloon.‘…. I’ll go with Michelin.
But are they maybe more
But are they maybe more likely to be in a crash?
Chris Hayes wrote:
The research to which Michelin refers shows that in an SUV vs normal sedan crash, the SUV passengers are 50% more likely to survive. That is not by any means the whole picture though, because it was also shown that when an SUV hits an SUV, there is a greater likelihood of passenger/driver mortality than in a sedan/sedan collision. SUVs are also more prone to rollover in single-vehicle incidents, increasing their mortality rate. It’s also worth noting that the 50% more likely to survive figure for SUV/sedan incidents primarily derives from the fact that due to their greater weight and height SUVs tend to roll over the top of sedans, crushing and killing the sedan occupants and saving the SUV occupants. I don’t know about you, but making myself safer by driving a vehicle that is more likely to kill others wouldn’t be a moral tradeoff I’d be happy to live with.
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisReminds me of the American woman who survived a crash because she was driving an SUV and the other people weren’t, and her response was to buy a bigger SUV.
I’d better get a tank. I hear
I’d better get a tank. I hear there are a few available some way east of the UK.
eburtthebike wrote:
Seems logical to me, but I’d prefer if people focussed on not crashing
Where do you live Rendel?
Where do you live Rendel? Perhaps we mean different things when we say SUV? And as for safety, I’m afraid my family’s safety is paramount and if you see that as a moral trade-off, it is one that I would make. There are lots of bad drivers where I live in Central London.
Fortunately, the only serious accident we’ve had is when we were T-boned by a van driver (trying to make fantasy delivery deadlines) who chose to run a red-light… We had an A8 at the time and all walked away.
Chris Hayes wrote:
We all have our moral red lines. (Recalling how that declines – my morals, your tendencies, their whims). But why stop at a whatever you mean by a SUV? Surely it’s possible to get safer? Isn’t that the next logical step? The question is how do we break out of the bigger / faster / heavier / better protection vehicle arms race.
I agree that’s not something you can do unilaterally and keep the rest of your life the same BTW.
I don’t like how I have
I don’t like how I have become a spokesman for SUVs, but I think a reasonableness test is required here.
Indeed And I’m not about to
Indeed And I’m not about to go around putting potatoes in exhaust pipes myself. I do go around on a bike though. That fails the reasonableness test for some (getting in their way, causing polution because slowing others down etc.). I also run errands on a bike, often without a helmet. That fails the reasonableness test for many (possibly endangering pedestrians, endangering myself and thus potentially tying up NHS resources etc).
SUVs would be – if cars didn’t all keep getting bigger – just a particularly visible aspect of some much bigger issues. It is a choice however. It happens to be a choice of richer / more priveledged / those less affected by the problems their choice causes which I’d say has bearing.
My cycling is a choice too of course and little to do with anything “moral” as I doubt I’d force myself if I didn’t really enjoy it. Would I be pissed off if someone let down my bike tyres in a direct action protest (to “protect pedestrians” or whatever)? Yes and obviously it’d take me less time to reinflate than a ranger rover and I’m more ready to do so. If I had a SUV I doubt I’d be unable to call a cab / sort out immediate alternatives though.
I would suggest SUV means the
I would suggest SUV means the big four by four wannabees you see everywhere ranging from Jukes upto a Q series/ Cayenne.
As for safety, they might not seem as safe as you believe in certain crashes.
Perhaps in the UK, but
Perhaps in the UK, but elsewhere in the Anglosphere you’d have to include F150s, Chevvy Silverados, and Dodge Journeys and the like… much bigger.
When it comes to Jukes and Cayennes I really don’t see the issue. The volume / capacity of a Juke is less than a Ford Focus (its just higher, that’s all) and Cayenne is about the same as 5 series (apart from the height) – both of which are not being targeted.
Chris Hayes wrote:
The height of SUVs is the principal problem with them in terms of the safety of more vulnerable road users, because they usually strike pedestrians at or above hip height, pushing them down under the wheels, whereas ordinary cars usually hit at or below the thigh and send the victim up over the bonnet. That’s why you’re three times more likely to die if hit by an SUV than by an ordinary saloon.
I also live in Central London
I also live in Central London, where my wife and I are constantly endangered when cycling by bad drivers, many in 4x4s that pass closer than others due to their width and the incapacity of the drivers to cope with the size of their vehicle. Speeds in London are not high enough for you to need the overkill protection of an SUV.
“I’m afraid my family’s safety is paramount…” Even if it makes it much, much more likely that other people will be killed or seriously injured in any incidents involving your vehicle? That’s not a moral tradeoff, that’s moral bankruptcy and staggering selfishness. I wonder how you would feel if one of your family was knocked down by a 4×4, and so suffered much more serious injuries than they would if hit by an ordinary car, that had been bought by someone else who decided they were happy with the “moral tradeoff” of making themselves and their family safer at the expense of the safety of others?
Muddy Ford wrote:
The paper figures might say that but they are generated to a formula; I would suggest that in a real-world scenario, say a London rush hour, where the bike can be almost continuously moving and the SUV will be idling or crawling 75% of the time, the bike will use less fuel.
In any case, that’s not really an argument in favour of SUVs, is it, that someone else has worse mileage? I expect you also have colleagues who drive small hatchbacks with much better mileage that don’t contribute to congestion by being so wide they effectively convert any two-way street into a one way and that are very significantly less likely to kill or seriously injure if involved in a collision with a pedestrian. SUVs in cities are a yacht in a bathtub, they’re not appropriate, they’re more dangerous and for 99% they’re just a status symbol where a smaller, cleaner car would suit their needs just as well.
There is no doubt that SUVs
There is no doubt that SUVs ARE worse in terms of fossil fuel energy used to build them, and the petrol/diesel that powers them.
It takes more energy to move something that is heavier; they are also spectacularly un-aerodynamic, which adds to their fuel inefficiency.
Add to this the fact that they are more likely to kill or seriously injure a person on foot or on a bike in the event of a crash, and it is obvious that it’s time we got rid of them as urban vehicles.
But what if at 3 am they had
But what if at 3 am they had to move a fridge, take a blind dog to the vet’s and 12 children (and all their stuff) to the airport?
Funny isn’t it with the news agenda, this mindful act is news, whereas on the same night a load of mind-less stuff will have happened, that we don’t remark on – fights, drug deals, crashes, the usual carry-on.
I don’t think that targetting
I don’t think that targetting SUVs and letting their tyres down is proportionate. If anything, I prefer the tyre slashing that some people have been doing (setting them on fire is probably a step too far).
It’s getting to be beyond a joke when the world leaders declare an “emergency” and continue drilling for oil and carrying on knowing full well that it’s not going to be them suffering (hint: it’ll be the poorest people driven out of their homes and dying from poisonous air). I’m now believing that Don’t Look Up was more of a documentary than anything else.
The recent scientists protests hardly got any coverage and meanwhile people are hand-wringing over some vehicles being damaged when we’re busy destroying our planet.
https://scientistrebellion.com/
https://www.stabroeknews.com/2022/04/21/opinion/editorial/when-scientists-protest/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/e2-80-98we-e2-80-99ve-been-trying-warn-you-for-so-many-decades-e2-80-99-nasa-climate-scientist-breaks-down-in-tears-at-protest/ar-AAWbPpW
Some perspective is needed here
If we stopped all fossil fuel
If we stopped all fossil fuel extraction today who would suffer the most?
The poorest and most vulnerable would die in their droves as heating and electricity became extortionately expensive.
Whether we like it or not, as a society we are dependent on fossil fuels and will be for some time to come.
Vandalising property and endangering people is not the way to persuade society to change tack.
Rich_cb wrote:
If not today, then when exactly?
As a society, we are not moving away from fossil fuels and are continuing their exploitation and use – this will inevitably stop at some point. We’ve had decades to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels and yet oil companies continue to reap huge profits.
The rich and powerful are always fond of holding up hordes of poor and disadvantaged people in front of them to act as a protective barrier, but then they employ hordes of accountants so that they don’t even have to pay a reasonable amount of tax.
With the mess that the world is now in, it’s inevitable that there will be a big upheaval and likely that lots of people will die, but we need to start dealing with that NOW rather than using it as yet another excuse to continue putting money into the pockets of oil barons.
(I find your pearl-clutching about “damage” to private property quite risible and I don’t buy your “endangering people” argument)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Since we live in a democracy it will be when a majority of the electorate vote for a party that is prepared to do something, damaging people’s property might end up causing them to vote for the “party of law and order” yet again!
The majority of people DID
The majority of people DID vote for parties that were prepared to do something. The Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote.
Yes, there are problems with
Yes, there are problems with first past the post but last time we were offered a chance to change it the majority of those who bothered to vote decided to keep it so what are we going to do?
Backladder wrote:
— BackladderWhat we were offered was neither fish nor fowl, a barely perciptible improvement on first past the post, which explains why no-one voted for it, because everyone knows we need a radical change.
We were offered a huge
We were offered a huge improvement on FPTP.
We declined.
Consider how many extra people might vote Green if they knew they’d also get a second vote if the Greens didn’t win.
FWIW I voted in favour of the change.
I too voted for the change,
I too voted for the change, if more people had done so we might have avoided the last 7 years of Tory government, and then where would we be!
It’s hard to try and predict
It’s hard to try and predict how the alternative vote would have changed the ensuing elections.
I think we’d have seen the ‘Red Wall’ collapse much sooner and the Greens establish themselves in many more cities. UKIP would likely have won some parliamentary seats along the way too.
Do you think we would even
Do you think we would even have voted on Brexit let alone done it?
I think we’d still have had a
I think we’d still have had a referendum. UKIP, Conservatives, Lib Dems and Greens were all in favour of a referendum.
There would have been more UKIP MPs post 2015 so as a consequence we may not have voted to Leave.
Backladder wrote:
Who exactly is the party of law and order? Would it be the one that parties and breaks the law?
Our democracy is clearly broken when most people seem to be unduly influenced by FarceBook and Muroch’s media. It’s almost as if the richest and most powerful people are deliberately entrenching their position and screwing the rest of us over.
Yes, the Party party always
Yes, the Party party always style themselves as the party of law and order, where have you been?
I don’t disagree that our democracy is broken but I don’t have any good solutions, do you?
Backladder wrote:
EAT THE RICH!
I see what you’re trying to
I see what you’re trying to do, you want to kill me with all that extra cholesterol!
When we have effective
When we have effective alternatives in place.
Within 5 years we’ll likely have enough low carbon sources of electricity to meet current demand as long as the wind and sun are favourable.
When they are not we will still be reliant on fossil fuels.
If we stopped extracting fossil fuels today our society simply would not survive.
Every aspect of our society intrinsically relies on fossil fuels.
The task of weaning our society off that dependence will take decades.
Ideologues like ‘Just Stop Oil’ don’t seem to grasp the extent of our dependence on it.
If you look at the ‘how to’ section of the Tyre Extinguishers website you’ll see they favour a method that slowly deflates the tyres, this makes it perfectly possible that someone could get in their car and drive off without realising that it was slowly becoming unsafe to drive. This would put the driver and also, ironically, vulnerable road users nearby in danger.
Rich_cb wrote:
So are you stating that in 5 years time we can stop extracting fossil fuels? That would be a better target than what we currently have, so I’d accept that as a compromise.
I don’t see that a slowly deflating tyre would cause a vehicle to become unsafe unless the owner deliberately ignored the warning letter stuck to their windscreen and then drove off without performing any safety checks. Deliberately deflating tyres causes less problems than a broken bottle left in the road.
No, I don’t think we’ll ever
No, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to stop extracting fossil fuels entirely.
The 5 years was just an attempt to give some perspective.
It will take 5 years to even reach the point when we can go 24 hours without using fossil fuels for electricity.
To reach the point where we can do that indefinitely is multiple decades away.
You’re assuming a leaflet on the window is a perfect warning mechanism. It obviously isn’t. There are myriad ways such a warning could fail.
A slowly deflating tyre may not be noticeable at the start of the journey but several hours later may reach the point of causing danger.
Rich_cb wrote:
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/139-to-100renewables-by-2050-clean-energy/#!
If we actually commit to dealing with the issues, then I’m sure we could bring about a substantial change, but even though an emergency has been declared, we’re still pussy-footing around whether to inconvenience some people or not (c.f. LTNs).
I still don’t think that a deflating tyre is that much of a safety issue as it seems unlikely that the tyre would be deflating slowly enough to not be spotted the following morning and yet be deflating fast enough to cause problems on the journey. I doubt that anyone has been injured by these actions, but feel free to go looking for the figures if they are available.
I get that an under-inflated tyre can cause handling problems, but a note on the windscreen seems a good enough warning, considering that deflating tyres (through wear and tear) is a common enough issue.
I think that paper is
I think that paper is championing boradly the same approach that I am. A pragmatic transition to net zero over the next three decades. That’s not what ‘Just Stop Oil’ et al are proposing.
You’re assuming the driver leaves several hours after the deflation has begun.
If they leave shortly afterwards and the, decidedly imperfect, warning system fails then both they and other road users will be placed in danger.
I just don’t think that’s an acceptable risk given the complete lack of benefit.
I’m sure that all vulnerable
I’m sure that all vulnerable road users will be delighted to have an increase in the number of angry SUV owners, late for their journey because they have just had to pump up their tyres, sharing our overcrowded roads!
Rich_cb wrote:
But why do we need to be exploiting new sources of fossil fuels? new oil wells, new coal mines, fracking etc. This is not about gradually phasing out, but ever increasing emissions.
Agreed. I think as usual
(Nothing to do with bikes again). Agreed. I think as usual Rich_cb is right, for a given value of “right”. Our “society” in one sense (e.g. like an archaeological “culture”) is predicated on ever increasing growth. Anything which limits that would mean a change. (Which might cause house prices to fall!) So absent this continual expansion it’s correct that “our society” wouldn’t “survive”.
Now the consequences. Luckily we have data on lots of historical examples of societal transition / “collapse”. Some of these have indeed been “world ending” events for the populations. The usual fates for systems above the biological “carrying capacity” – famine, disease and normally war / anarchy. However in many (most?) cases something less dramatic occurs. The archaeological “culture” disappears but the people remain. Sometimes this is more gradual (e.g. a culture is replaced by similar cultures), sometimes we get “dark ages” where people keep living there but at a much less “sophisticated” cultural level.
The good news for us is that we have incomparable resources (compared to former times) in terms of knowledge and “design”. Even just knowing that something is possible is a great help to creating it. Plus there is more widespread cooperation between people (both within regions and globally) and many people have had some generations of relative stability. So we have a good chance of forming a collaborative “conspiracy” to change things / “Mad Max” outcomes less likely.
The bad news is that due to our specialisation and technological level our systems are not very resilient. It’s OK if one country has an issue but if a whole region does not so much. You can’t build a very good bike with iron-age technology but you could probably repair one. Not so a mobile phone. Because of our huge energy / resource usage / populations far above “carrying capacity” our “culture” is extremely unstable. Also due to our huge inequalities there are plenty of people with a grudge or used to holding on to power by extremely repressive actions.
chrisonatrike wrote:
But how can I repair my bike if I don’t have a phone to Google how to do it?
Good point. Someone tried to
Good point. Someone tried to get their bread to toast without reference to modern tech and the results were mixed:
https://www.thomasthwaites.com/the-toaster-project/
The sheer amount of fossil
The sheer amount of fossil fuels consumed by our society means that even a gradual phasing out will rapidly diminish existing mines etc.
The transition away from fossil fuels will take multiple decades. New mines etc will be needed just to meet the demand during that transition.
It sounds as though you want
It sounds as though you want to do nothing in response to this existential crisis.
You can always be relied on to latch on to the wrong side of any argument.
You can take a pragmatic
You can take a pragmatic approach to the problem and actually solve it or you can take an ideological approach and not solve it.
In a democracy you’ve got to take the majority of people with you or you can’t go forward.
Vandalising property and endangering people will not persuade the majority.
Rich_cb wrote:
A pragmatic approach would involve reducing the CO2 that we continue to pump out. What you seem to be championing is the “kick it down the road” approach and not deal with it now. This is the same approach we’ve had since the 1970s and it’s clearly not pragmatic unless you consider the wealth that certain people have made from it.
What would you do? Actually a
What would you do? Actually a more pertinent question would be what are you doing?
jaymack wrote:
What the right always do, take every possible solution and find a problem for it that justifies retaining the status quo.
Ooh – another political
Ooh – another political spectrum one!
In response to SUVs? I’d
In response to SUVs? I’d introduce a replacement for VED that was charged on a combination of vehicle weight, fuel type and mileage.
That would encourage the move towards smaller cars which are both less polluting and safer in an urban environment.
Ironically it would do nothing to dissuade the wealthy Londoners targeted above as if they can afford to live there they can doubtless afford a bigger tax bill.
As for what I’ve done? I don’t own a car. I don’t fly. I buy local, seasonal produce. I’ve made significant investments in my house to bring it up to an A rating for energy efficiency. I have ordered a large PV array for my house enabling me to produce the equivalent of all the electricity I currently use. The PVs are made in the UK partly from recycled materials so there’s a long lead time but hopefully will be up and running by 2023.
Other than that not much.
Chapeau!
Chapeau!
Rich_cb wrote:
that’s a nudge, but why can’t we just refuse to approve for use on the roads any vehicles with a combined cycle fuel efficiency below a threshold? eg 50mpg?
limit power to 200bhp (or 150), whatever
The government have
The government have effectively banned new ICE vehicles from 2030 so mpg is going to be far less relevant shortly.
I’d like to see all non emergency vehicles limited to 70mph top speed.
With that in place there would be little incentive for hugely powerful vehicles so hopefully the market would adjust accordingly.
Tyre regulation is probably the lowest hanging fruit. Minimum standards for rolling resistance and particulate emissions would have a huge compound effect.
Rich_cb wrote:
Hmm… but they are speed limited already! Not by the law, but by people mostly driving around urban areas.
Hasn’t stopped the enthusiasm for larger more powerful vehicles.
I think people want these because “this one goes up to 11“. Plus a few people will think “it’ll get me up to 34mph faster“.
A huge increase in the
A huge increase in the business rates for office space to encourage managers to accept working from home.
Rich_cb wrote:
The oil companies, many of whom spent fortunes attempting to cover up man made global warming and are still trying to muddy the waters, and mostly nasty regimes throughout the world.
Norway wouldn’t have quite as much cash to invest in it’s society, but they would manage.
If you consider a company
If you consider a company going bust to have suffered more than a person freezing to death.
Others may disagree.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Criminal damage. Nice, W⚓
Adam Sutton wrote:
I don’t think that targetting SUVs and letting their tyres down is proportionate. If anything, I prefer the tyre slashing that some people have been doing (setting them on fire is probably a step too far).
— Adam Sutton Criminal damage. Nice, W⚓— hawkinspeter
…and yet it’s considered legal and proper to burn petrochemicals and just chuck the residues out into the air for everyone to breathe. Poisoning the air (which leads to a surprising number of deaths and significant health problems) vs letting down some tyres and you think that letting down some tyres is the problem?
You need some perspective.
It’d be interesting to see
It’d be interesting to see what type of wheeled vehicles poses the greatest danger to cyclists in London, which seems to be the main target area of Tyre Extinguishers.
The long-term effects of emissions aside, in my own experience (25 years cycling around the city – daily) the main immediate danger seems to cyclists seems to come from white vans, trucks, with taxis a close third in Zone One. And there are more of these vehicles on the road in Central London than SUVs, which seem to be an easy target.
The main danger to pedestrians, on the other hand, seems to be their mobile phones, the use of which is compulsory when crossing the road, followed by cyclists (silent, less visible, and able to weave through stationary traffic unimpeded).
Throw in emissions and you’d be doing well to compete with aged gas boilers heating our D-E rated housing stock….perhaps we should start setting fire to those too….or would that lead to more emissions?
Have you got an SUV?
Have you got an SUV?
Matters not one jot what
Matters not one jot what vehicle if any he drives.
Having started to try and cycle to work through London, sorry but it’s an uncomfortable truth that a large number of cyclists in London are a law unto themselves. They’ll even ignore lights specifically designed for cyclists. Honestly having witnessed this time and time again, I’m done defending cyclist by and large.
Nice to see people here defending damaging others property though.
Letting tyres down isn’t
Letting tyres down isn’t really damaging them is it though.
My latex tubes seem to be great at damaging themselves…
More of a temporary inconvenience. Solved by pumping them back again.
And if it is DAMAGE to you, then only a matter of degree up to slashing the tyres, which you seem to really object to.
Only yourself to blame for
Only yourself to blame for running a setup that seems puncture prone, but nice whataboutism.
I use my bike as transport and even before going tubeless had only a couple punctures when running tubes with mixed road/off road use. Doesn’t justify messing about with someone’s property. We’ve now added siphoning out fuel to the mix of deranged ideas put forward here. The responses here from the self righteous on two wheels are embarrassing.
Latex tubes aren’t
Latex tubes aren’t particularly puncture prone.
But they will deflate all by themselves, requiring pumping up two or three times a week, worth it because of the lack of weight and feel.
Knowledge of cycling and all that..
I see you have come down to “messing with someone’s property” unlike criminal damage or vandalism, which some have claimed, maybe even yourself.
In fact, my first few latex
In fact, my first few latex tubes, the wonderful air-b latex, claimed reduced chance of punctures.
ktache wrote:
Apologies for my ignorance, but then like I say relying on my bike as transport I chose tubes that are less prone to loosing air as well as punctures, before I went tubless with a tyre change.
You seem keen on pedantry and semantics. So let me correct myself, the correct term is “interference with a vehicle” as confirmed by the police when I submitted CCTV last year of someone trying my car doors. This was someone who had previous and ended up with a 32 week sentence, but rest assured I would have no issue reporting anyone “interfering, messing, causing damage” to any vehicle I own to the police in the same way. Messing, damaging (or slashing tyres as some here seem to think is fine) is a matter of safety, so I think they’d be pretty keen on that too.
I don’t drive, never have,
I don’t drive, never have, cycle commuter for almost 35 years, started a few days after my 16th birthday, my bicycles are my primary transport. For the past 25 years I have used latex tubes. I happen to think they extra cost and faff were worth it.
My new Ultimate Commuter does use a tubeless set up but still needs air once a week.
For the practicality you claim to want, you might want to think about Tannus airless tyres. No chance of punctures and you never have to pump them up, it being such an onerous task. My brother does for his London commute.
Well done for at least being specific, though I would guess that the person interfering with your vehicle was attempting to steal something, which these protestors very much are avoiding doing.
For the past 25 years I have
For the past 25 years I have used latex tubes. I happen to think they extra cost and faff were worth it
They say a Princess can detect a pea beneath a pile of mattresses- I am clearly no Princess because I I can’t really detect the difference between the 23 mm Kevlar tyres on the titanium Merlin and the 35 mm Marathon Plus on the Vitus gravel, admittedly both with butyl tubes. There is a 5% increased time for the Vitus, but it doesn’t feel much different at the time. I am therefore impressed that you feel the difference when just changing to latex tubes- and that’s not getting at you, one of the most thoughtful on here!
Marginal gains?..
Marginal gains?..
Very little on times, just feel.
Sort of how as the pressure changes in the tyres over a few days, it gives you different feelings as the surface changes on your regular ride.
And, when you do get a
And, when you do get a puncture you get to write on them, an X for the hole, and then around the patch where you need to apply the vulcanising solution.
I know where I could save
I know where I could save some weight and sadly it’s not the bike, it’s the rider! Helps on the downhill, not so much going uphill!
What do you want a medal?
What do you want a medal?
My setup suits me. You seem to want to use the pitfalls of your own setup to excuse their behaviour. Personally I was brought up to respect others property. Of bloody course the guy trying car doors was an opportunistic thief, but deflating car tyres is still interfering with someone’s property.
You’ve got medals?
You’ve got medals?
Just a healthy respect for
Just a healthy respect for others property.
Are you saying “people on
Are you saying “people on bikes are idiots”, “most people on bikes are idiots”, “many” or “some”? If towards the latter end of that scale I would agree – I can’t not. And they’re idiots in cars, and walking. I’ve spend some time over the last weeks clearing up smashed bottles on the paths / cycle way locally. Clearly some people were idiots there (didn’t damage my property this time, thanks Schwalbe Marathon Plus!) I don’t know if they were particularly cycle haters (maybe enraged “motorists” or “pedestrians”?) or kids or drunks or any combination. Idiots though.
I do find it tiring sometimes being expected to have a view / be a spokesperson for cyclists. But when I see someone being an idiot on a bike (as I do not infrequently) it doesn’t make me think “I better shut up about the benefit of cycling” though – any more than I or you would take on the guilt of drink-drivers. Yes – it’s irritating. I try to think “glad you’re not driving”. I don’t think that’s whataboutery – why? Well we’re all subsidising driving through our taxes. Driving has some unavoidable negative effects, is normally unpleasant for cylists and pedestrians (the noise!) and has the potential to cause some specific harms to me or you or our relatives.
As was clear I said “a large
As was clear I said “a large number” as is the reality. Having ridden to work yesterday and at every single set of lights I found myself stopped at, I was joined by other cyclists, and also had others simply ignore them and ride through. The standout being a loaded cargo bike ignoring the lights at a busy junction near the tower of London.
As for the rest of your incoherent ramble. Wibble.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Nice. Not a big Red Dwarf fan myself but have at it. “A large number” – that didn’t really add anything did it?
From your previous post:
Doesn’t sound like you ever did but don’t feel you have to. Per my previous point if you cycle like a berk or a saint that’s got nothing to do with how I cycle.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Actually I have, many times. The self righteous nonsense here coupled with recent experience of cyclists on London has me facepalming with embarrassment though.
That’s right others behaviour has no bearing on your own cycling, but when the reality is in places like London so many cyclists ARE cycling like berks, it really shouldn’t be surprising that people frustrated with them, do question the traceability and accountability of cyclists. And for the love of god, no this is not me myself calling for registration of cyclists.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Doesn’t sound like you ever did but don’t feel you have to. Per my previous point if you cycle like a berk or a saint that’s got nothing to do with how I cycle.
— Adam Sutton Actually I have, many times.— chrisonatrike
Well thank you anyway. I don’t know if it makes a difference but engaging with people would seem to be a positive action.
I think the particular frustration with poor cycling behaviour is mainly felt by … cyclists. I’ve experienced quite a bit of rage just for being on a bike, perfectly legally and politely. I’m not perfect but in my case there is little correlation between “bloody cyclist” and actual illegal / dangerous behaviour. Although “I saw a cyclist do x” is what commonly comes up in conversation I suspect there are other reasons for the unhappiness of people who are complaining about people on bikes.
Another reason for believing it’s not about what people say it’s about is when people proffer advice about my well-being. Nice and all but the conversations I’ve had – for example about my not always wearing a helmet – suggest they’re not really worried for me. I’m just doing something unusual that people think is at best self-indulgent. (They’re right about that! Just less indulgent than driving myself.)
I agree there is a conversation to have about policing cyclists. I don’t think this will calm people down who are having the conversations about this issue however – reason above. Of course we can tackle multiple issues at once but I don’t personally think it’s particularly high on the list of things to address. I think it could be done together with how we reliably identify e.g. muggers on scooters, people wearing motorbike helmets / hoodies / dark glasses and drivers. Drivers are a useful data point as somehow having licencing and registration doesn’t always seem to help pin them down either.
If you’re frustrated at the bad example of some cyclists, just stay at that junction. I’m not based in London but I’m sure some good cyclists will come along for you to point out to people to provide a counter to the bad cyclists.
We’ll not agree as I’m a “fix the pipe so the kids can swing on it” type.
All I’m saying is it shouldn
All I’m saying is it shouldn’t be surprising really that people are frustrated at cyclists, when I have video from my own camera of a pedestrian stood gobsmacked saying “did they just jump the lights?” After a cyclist completely ignores the pedestrian crossing and them using it. It doesn’t really look good either when “some” cyclists are publicly posting that deflating car tyres isn’t enough, slash them or… Syphon out the fuel, is it.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Well, Peter Sutcliffe was a driver, so following your example, we should get irate with drivers as they go around murdering (well, actually some of them do that directly with bad driving, but there’s also a low level murderousness from poisionous exhaust fumes).Also, Hitler was a huge fan of personal motor cars and motor racing, so we should recognise that drivers are just promoting genocide.
(Found an old Graaduina article about Hitler’s brave new car plan: https://www.theguardian.com/century/1930-1939/Story/0,,127261,00.html)
Keep on reaching pal.
Keep on reaching pal. Congrats on Godwin’s law though that’s a new one. So you think cycling through busy pedestrian crossings is OK because something, something Hitler, cars. LMFAO!
Adam Sutton wrote:
I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your previous statement by switching it from cyclists to drivers, but you seem to have trouble following my meaning. At least we agree that your previous statement is nonsensical.
Nice strawman though as of course motorists have never and will never jump a red light (cue WTJS).
hawkinspeter wrote:
I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your previous statement by switching it from cyclists to drivers, but you seem to have trouble following my meaning. At least we agree that your previous statement is nonsensical.
Nice strawman though as of course motorists have never and will never jump a red light (cue WTJS).— Adam Sutton
Strawman, LOLS! Righto. Seriously if you think acknowledging that in places like London there is a problem with cyclists ignoring junctions, lights and the highway code even on segregated sections designed for their safety, is ridiculous and a strawman then maybe you’re part of the problem.
Nowhere have I said motorists don’t jump lights, nor would I deny it, but here you are using the behaviour of some motorists to excuse the behaviour of some cyclists.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Your strawman argument was “So you think cycling through busy pedestrian crossings is OK because something, something Hitler, cars” and I at no point stated that cycling through busy pedestrian crossings is okay. Hence – you’re building a strawman that bears no relation to the discussion.
If you have issues with some cyclists jumping through red lights, then either try addressing it with them or capture some video footage and see how interested the police are. Blaming other cyclists just makes you sound like an asshole and it’s the kind of ridiculous MSM cyclist hating crap that we hear all the time.
(By the way, if you’re going to accuse me of excusing the behaviour of some cyclists, then please quote my specific words – I think you’re getting confused by my statements)
So do you accept there is a
So do you accept there is a problem with some cyclists behaviour in places like London or are you going to present some more nonsense about Hitler and cars?
Adam Sutton wrote:
I see “bad” behaviour here in Bristol with cyclists and scooterists jumping lights and/or using pavements. I don’t see it as a big problem though as there’s rarely any collisions. I also see a lot of drivers that speed up to race through “only just gone red” lights and I see that as a much bigger problem.
If you analyze the behaviours of cyclist/scooterist RLJing behaviour you’ll see a lot of instances where it appears quite safe for them to do so and conversely, waiting at a red light can put you into conflict with lorries/buses/cars etc. However, speeding up to get through a just-changed red light is potentially much more dangerous due to the increased speed and certainly due to the increased mass (2 tonnes?).
Now, I don’t see that cyclists RLJing through an empty crossing is a problem and a lot of the times, you could have that crossing replaced with a zebra crossing and suddenly there is no need for RLJing. This kind of behaviour is actually legislated for in places such as Paris and some places in the U.S. (c.f. Idaho Stop). My opinion is that a lot of light controlled junctions are designed purely for motor traffic and even sometimes not even registering when a cyclist approaches (c.f. Dead Red laws).
Often, RLJing by cyclists is a symptom of poor road and junction design and possibly also a cultural issue too. I did notice in Copenhagen that red lights were sacrosanct and neither pedestrians, nor cyclists, nor drivers disobeyed them (or at least for the week that I spent there). There were a significant number of cyclists/scooterists using mobile phones, however which I think is illegal over there, so I doubt that it’s just the Danish being more law abiding.
However, RLJing through a busy junction can put pedestrians (and the cyclist/scooterist) at risk, so it’s obviously an asshole thing to do and I don’t condone that. I doubt that it’s a big problem considering that our air is poisonous and even if we were to immediately stop pulling oil out of the ground, our current oil-based infrastructure would still put us over the Paris Treaty limit of 2°C global warming. See https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ for more details on just how screwed our planet is.
speeding up to get through a
speeding up to get through a just-changed red light is potentially much more dangerous
And in Lancashire this behaviour is encouraged by The Bad Cops, since nothing ever happens to the offenders. ND66 HVU Audi-driver-ignores-the-law-shock! OpSnapLancs has now, as anticipated, degenerated to just ignoring every fully documented case- I only went down to catch an up-to-date offender for my letter to Ben Wallace MP and this 50 mph Audi came through just as I arrived!
But this is whataboutery!
But this is whataboutery! Firstly there are no pedestrians in the picture – so no risk to them. Secondly if the car had flat tyres it wouldn’t be doing 50 so unrelated to the topic.
I think Adam Sutton observes
I think Adam Sutton observes cyclists breaking rules and doesn’t like it. They then notice other people commenting on cyclists breaking rules. That’s a concern because they cycle – potentially putting them in the company of rule breakers / bad cyclists in other people’s eyes. In addition when they come on here and read some of the comments (hopefully they weren’t around for LegsElevenWorcester / CyclingInBeastMode was it?) those come over in the same way as we read e.g. Matthew Parris saying cyclists should be decapitated (lots of other columnists and pundits available, sadly). We don’t get to complain about that but fail to complain about other people saying they might key a car or let down tyres. We on here should be decrying this and if we also condemned bad cyclists that might make them better and if we all behaved better we’d get respect. Or at least we wouldn’t have to worry about people complaining about red light jumping cyclists.
I think the idea that perfect behaviour will get respect and solve problems is a fallacy so we disagree about that. I think the “but you lot said things just like Mr. Parris” is better and might have some merit … if road.cc were a national paper / media channel and its posters influencers. Rather than being a niche for some cyclists. There certainly have been people posting suggestions here they’ll get violent or destructive but I generally see these called out.
Again I agree that some of their concerns have merit. And I can hardly disagree that there are cyclists in London breaking the law or otherwise behaving dangerously / antisocially. I’m just not so literal minded or absolutist. I’m surprised they care about what I think. Apart from anything else I’m a law breaker too – and once is enough. For example I definitely cycled through some red lights on a critical mass ride. Pissing some ordinary people off – counterproductive!
I’m also unclear why what I post here has any bearing on most people who cycle – especially those who ignore the law. Certainly it has no bearing on those who don’t cycle. I guess I should be pleased not to be taken for a keyboard warrior?
chrisonatrike wrote:
There’s a fundamental and important difference between damaging someone’s property and attacking people, so I’d say that Matthew Parris’ call for violence was vastly different to people wanting to let down some tyres. There’s real actual harm caused by so many people choosing to drive and whilst I don’t think that SUVs should be the sole target, I do sympathise with people getting angry that governments are ignoring the peril that everyone (excepting rich people buying up New Zealand property) is now in and choosing to send a message through non-violence.
Nowhere have I been
Nowhere have I been absolutist as that is an impossibility, sure the reality is elements of all road users will break the law. I have a number of close pass videos myself from cycling and an insurance claim on my car from someone who didn’t understand roundabouts.
Somehow though stating what at the end of the day is a fact, that the behaviour of some cyclists makes it unsurprising that people will question their accountability etc, seems triggering. Although oddly often it seems absolutism seems fine when targeted at motorists. It’s almost like politics where people have to pick a side left/right, motorist/cyclist, god forbid someone owning a car and a bike, using both for transportation as appropriate.
Similarly holding an opinion that messing with others property is wrong, and the focus on SUVs is ill placed and counterproductive, seems triggering and will illicit ad hominem. The fact ultimately is there are saloon cars, hatchbacks etc more powerful and more polluting than many SUVs, some bigger too. An issue though with cars as a whole is what’s the solution? This is posturing with little understanding of the wider issues. As I said in response to Rendell, even in urban areas alternatives like public transport are not viable. Seems people cannot see or appreciate that, hence throwing out the idea that working 3am one should be able to get a night bus.
Adam Sutton wrote:
The “unsurprising” bit is an opinion not a fact – unless you’re only speaking for yourself. I don’t disagree that if cyclists do something bad people will comment negatively on it. I know the conversation stops there for you – or just at “cyclist did something bad”. So say all cyclists listen to us and start obeying the law. Would no-one pass comment / get irritated with them e.g. “slowing me down again” or “riding up the inside!”? I’d be surprised if that was the case. The people who’ve driven at me / thrown things at me while cycling weren’t doing so because I broke the law, or because of my opinions and I doubt it was in revenge for other cyclists jumping a red light or riding too close to them.
Moving on from that what are your suggestions to change things? I’ve a few. They won’t fix human behaviour, or your immediate transport needs right now of course.
There are some declared non-car-owners here and even some non-drivers but it’s “most cyclists are drivers, few drivers are cyclists” on here too.
People tending to side with other cyclists here? “Cycling forum”. People tending to fail to read before typing / getting irritated / throwing ad-homs? “Forum”. Hatred of motorists underling all this? Maybe – but that’s also shared by non-cycling motorists.
There is no single one. And sometimes I’m not even certain we can move on in the UK as a whole from where we are. There are lots of things we could do though. Many of which would actually benefit people who can’t / won’t walk or cycle or don’t live near a bus.
chrisonatrike wrote:
To set the record straight, as a non-driving cyclist (I want my goddamn medal too!) I don’t hate motorists, but hate all the poor driving and aggression targetted against cyclists. I don’t have a problem with anyone riding a bike, even if they’re the most aggressive, selfish cyclist around as it’s better that they’re on a bike and not steering tonnes of metal around much faster.
The real problem is how our society is built around the personal car and so many people bring out reasons why they find driving convenient and most of the time, it’s due to how we’ve designed public transport and cities around the car. It’s like “now that we’ve made the car the only solution, we can’t possibly do something different as it won’t work”.
I think that all cyclists
I think that all cyclists should be forced to buy cars. That would:
a) produce billions in revenue for the treasury which will help us sort out our roads and solve the climate crisis (where we started …)
b) give them some respect for others – they’d now be worried about their tyres / paintwork. They’d be the ones stuck waiting at lights / in traffic / frightened of injuring others.
c) teach them how to use the streets safely
d) we’d have more space to resolve congestion – they wouldn’t be holding drivers up and we could bin the empty cycle lanes / paths.
e) You’d be able to identify the bad ones through their number plates.
f) They wouldn’t be able to be smug / get triggered by death threats or other banter, because they wouldn’t be.
As the old saying – we should all drive a mile in someone else’s SUV before we judge them. And pay to fill up afterwards.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Ok, so new plan – instead of letting down tyres, hot-wire the SUVs and drive them a mile away. Might be a good idea to leave a note so that the owner doesn’t think that it’s been stolen (the police have enough to do already) though they’d still have to go searching for wherever their vehicle’s been left.
That plan would presumably
That plan would presumably justify the focus on SUVs when plenty of other motor vehicle types are available? More space to put your tandem in so you can get back to the start. (Better to go in pairs in case of vigilantes…) 😉 Was the plan to deposit them all in the same place – leaving a standard note – or just mix them up by abandoning one when you find another to relocate? You could be helpful there by providing instructions on where it had come from.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Definitely the second option as you can park the relocated SUV in the space of the next one.
Ha! Caught you! Impossible
Ha! Caught you! Impossible as everyone knows there’s nowhere to park a normal-sized (?) car these days.
chrisonatrike wrote:
No – you set off as a pair and borrow the first SUV. Drive and find the next target where the passenger jumps out and moves the next SUV out of its space, leaving room for the first one to be parked up. After parking, jump in the next SUV, rinse and repeat.
.
.
But…they might have to WALK
But…they might have to WALK a MILE or even more! Luddite, politics of envy*, snowflake, woke, etc, etc…
* Can anyone explain to me why it’s the “politics of envy” to object to a type of vehicle that I have not the slightest desire to own and that I would refuse to accept if it was offered to me for nothing?
Steady on! If you woke up
Steady on! If you woke up one morning, had to grab all your paperwork for the mid-morning lycrist conspiracy meeting, get the squirrels ready to go, persuade your aged parents not to dodder down the road on their own (dangerous with the bikes out there) but wait for you to get back to run them to their appointments, rushed out the door late … and then found your tyres flat I’m sure it would be a moment.
However presumably you’d call a taxi at that point. If it happened a few more times and you were running short of taxi money I guess you could swap the SUV for a smaller vehicle with the same number of seats and pocket the difference? Unless the coming legislation means that these vehicles are in “negative equity” and no-one else will take them either?
I think the point about “politics of envy” may actually be a kind of “it’s just (middle-class) smugness / proletarian distaste” argument. It’s that people here may be experiencing some schadenfreude when thinking about the scenario above. Presumably because they see people with SUVs as undeservingly richer – or less tasteful with their money?
Can we please just all agree
Can we please just all agree that the Bentley and Lamborghini SUVs are fair game, just for the downright ugliness…
Can I add the Rolls Royce
Can I add the Rolls Royce Cullinan? Not a car fan but I can appreciate the aesthetics of good design, I see a few of these around Kensington, they look like a “We want an SUV but obviously it has to look like a roller, so cut the front off an SUV and stick an RR bonnet on it.” Feckin hideous. To be fair usually very well driven because normally a professional chauffeur piloting.
Ugh! That’s like Prince
Ugh! That’s like Prince Andrew in a disco (other less culpable royals are available)!
Wonder if it has an inability
Wonder if it has an inability to sweat?
Can I add the Rolls Royce
Can I add the Rolls Royce Cullinan?
It’s difficult, but try to imagine your way into the minds of these people and realise that they have no taste or sense whatsoever beyond ‘costs more = better’. They wait their entire lives for the dream occurrence of ‘roads blocked by snow yet they are the only vehicle to get through’- having been unable to work out that the roads are already blocked by ordinary scum vehicles
chrisonatrike wrote:
That’s why we have N+1 bikes though
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, technically we have N bikes, that being the number one currently owns, whereas N+1 is the ideal number.
mark1a wrote:
Well, technically we have N bikes, that being the number one currently owns, whereas N+1 is the ideal number. — hawkinspeter
For large values of N, the ratio approaches one, so there’s that
Chris Hayes wrote:
I can’t speak for London but of all the Police reports i’ve made on my commute in Birmingham over the last couple of years nearly half have been small cars from the Volkswagen Audi Group and Mercedes Sprinter vans/chassis cabs. The only two times SUV’s have nearly hit me the drivers stopped just in time, looked shaken and couldn’t apologise enough so I just talked to them politely and didn’t report them.
I’m not defending SUV drivers but in my opionion a dangerous driver makes whatever vehicle they are in dangerous to vulnerable road users. I’d rather a safe SUV than a dangerous mini, my ‘closest’ close pass was an untaxed and uninsured Nissan Micra at (I estimated) over 80mph in a 40mph dual carriageway between me and another car in the right lane.
Putting their enviromental aims to one side for a moment, if ‘Tyre Extinguishers’ really want to make cycling safer then let down every tyre on every vehicle with four tyres or more or just campaign for better public transport, 20mph speed limits and more driver training/education.
Have to say, whether its
Have to say, whether its familiarity with the roads, the cycling infrastructure, or static traffic at times, London feels a reasonably safe place to cycle. I’ve had two accidents in 25 years – one on the cycle path in Hyde Park (car park entrance, I thought I had right of way and so did the BMW driver…I think the equation is ‘mass is right’ and then a nasty one last year which I’m only just recovering from which involved coming off my Brompton and hitting my hip on the kerbedge (resulting in the loss of lots of synovial fluid). No cars involved – just shitty road conditions.
Birmingham on the other hand sounds like a nightmare….though dual carriageways are a risk for cyclists anywhere. Have to say, I cycle quite a bit through Sheffield too towards the Peak District and find faster moving traffic far more alarming.
From: https:/
From: https://scientistrebellion.com/we-leaked-the-upcoming-ipcc-report/
There’s no time to wait around, there’s no time for continued inaction – the people deserve to know NOW what our corporate owned politicians have done to them.
The greatest crime ever has already been carried out – the perpetrators are still at liberty, but the victims are starting to pile up.
We leaked the report because governments – pressured and bribed by fossil fuel and other industries, protecting their failed ideology and avoiding accountability – have edited the conclusions before official reports were released in the past. We leaked it to show that scientists are willing to disobey and take personal risk to inform the public.
The report explicitly states that incremental change is not a viable option. It states that individual behavioural changes alone are insignificant. It states that justice, equity and redistribution are essential to climate policy.
It says that we need massive investment – to transform energy systems, transport, industry, land use and agriculture, housing, and to prepare for the accelerating effects of climate breakdown – not the death cult of conservative economics.
It shows that we must abandon economic growth, which is the basis of capitalism.
For thousands of scientists – mostly older, privileged, moderate – to agree on something so apparently radical demonstrates the severity of the present moment. But the real radicals are in power. They will plunder the Earth until it is but fire and ash, unless we stop them.
We plead with people to go into serious nonviolent resistance. To join us in the streets to apply unbearable pressure on this genocidal system – to take it down before it takes us all down with it.
That all sounds very radical
That all sounds very radical but unless you get everything absolutely right with your non-incremental changes you could easily be killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people, that doesn’t sound like a good idea and from what I’ve seen and read there is nothing about the climate policy we need that requires justice, equity and redistribution, in fact adding them in to the requirements will just make it impossible to get any agreement on what needs to be done.
So is this truly what the reoprt will say or is it just the interpretation of a few fools who haven’t thought it through?
Backladder wrote:
The reason that the scientists leaked the report was to get the message out before it inevitably got watered down by fossil fuel interests (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/15/ipcc-un-climate-reports-diluted-protect-fossil-fuel-interests).
Your argument about needing to get everything absolutely right is a classic “perfect being the enemy of good” situation. The way things are going, there will be much larger numbers of casualties than simply hundreds or thousands (why do I suddenly want cake?), so we need to do everything we can to lessen the climate catastrophe.
hawkinspeter wrote:
My argument is not about the perfect being the enemy of the good but about the law of unintended concequences.
Yet both are clarion calls to
Yet both are clarion calls to those who rush to oppose any measure that could make progress in an urgent situation.
Hmm… I think you’re saying
Hmm… I think you’re saying – as we all do – “I’m alright now – why risk that with change?” This is understandable. There are plenty who think this science stuff is someone’s invention to cow people, or plain wrong. Some folks think that it may be true but is not worth all the excitement and it’s just another thing people will deal with if and when it arrives, as they always have.
If you don’t fall into those particular categories then I’d argue that we have already been making fairly short-sighted changes for some decades (centuries). We have been doing this at an increasing rate. Some of these (e.g. leaded petrol, just dumping waste in the rivers) have already given us the chance to see we can cause awful problems in the short / medium term in the cause of “progress”. That interesting puzzles for clever minds, power and great wealth for a few and convenience for many can bite us pretty quickly. We have had the chance to appreciate the benefits and costs of our short-term thinking and acquisitive trends.
The longer-term is a problem (or no problem at all) for individual humans – after all we won’t be there. However if the science is right we are already seeing and will see more of the effects. Lots of this comes from choices about “convenience” (now “necessities”). This will affect our children, and grandchildren. Are we being good ancestors? (Do we care?) Will we be ancestors?
You may have a deeper point in that the commercial, political and social structures that have brought us to this point may be completely unsuited to making changes which will mitigate things. Certainly it’s not likely to happen in a fair way – which might mean they fail. Are our organisational / power structures even capable of guiding us in living according to longer term interests?
chrisonatrike wrote:
That’s easy to answer, . . . . . NO.
Whatever point of view you take on any issue in society, anything politicians, corporations or news media do to benefit regular people is purely coincidental in achieving their own aims, i.e. benefiting themselves.
Partly correct – in that the
Partly correct – in that the feedback loop has to ensure that the group benefits itself as part of its effects, otherwise it won’t continue to exist. Also not entirely correct as people and organisations generally have some desire to keep the show going. Hence most organisations aren’t out-and-out pyramid marketing schemes, most people aren’t full-on pirates and we tend not to set our houses on fire to warm up.
The question is the degree to which “benifits ourselves” includes “in the future and not just now”. And how long we are able to think into the future and how widely we consider the effects of our actions.
It’s impossible not to feel your cynicism though if you consume “news”.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I just assume news is 75% lies or at least spin to make us see the 25% that is factual in a way that suits whoever pays the bills of the news outlet. Read coverage of a politicians speech in the Daily Mail and then the Guardian, you’d think the reporters had watched two completely different speeches but there will be some truth in both if you look hard enough.
Yes, I am alright now but I’m
Yes, I am alright now but I’m happy to vote for change if someone will promise it, unfortunately even when someone does they do not seem to get into power so the answer to your last paragraph has to be no in my opinion.
The only way I can see us getting out of these problems is to abandon the current committment to continuous growth, not just in the economy but in population as well but I doubt that idea will go down well with the public nevermind the government.
I would like to see a real attempt to put the carrot before the stick so that we can then say you were given a real chance to do the right thing (for example providing good quality free public transport before increasing motoring costs rather than increasing motoring costs and saying you will use the proceeds to provide free public transport).
I hope someone catches them
I hope someone catches them and beats them senseless.
birzzles wrote:
wait til you hear about something happening that is actually serious – it will blow your mind.
But this is damage to
But this is damage to property! And actually endangering drivers (and others) because altering handling of cars! I mean – that could even cause the car to crash into a house, or something…
It’s not damage to property.
It’s not damage to property. It’s a flat tyre.
The more you think about it. The more a good idea it becomes. You’re actually going to consider this greener concept (while reinflating your tyre). In some cases people may choose to reduce their need for a Chelsea tractor. I love city cycling when I can and London is choc full of tractors!
Draining the petrol would be
Draining the petrol would be more pertinent but harder to do and also theft.
The fact that lots of people still display their status via bigger cars is the thing here. (I don’t believe the Clarkson “we have to, to protect our children from others in big cars” idea really applies much.) Apparently in some places (I’ve heard it said of some places in The Netherlands) there’s a “reverse” of this in that cycling in the centre of cities is a demonstration that you can afford to live close to work and thus of your higher wealth / status.
The above shows we should examine the idea of change from the other perspective. Suppose people do give up the gas guzzlers. What will the wealthy / influential do for transport? How will they display their wealth / status? Because they will. Will this continue to be a vehicle thing? If so how can we work with that rather than simply substituting ICE SUVs for electric SUVs? (That’s as much of a plan as the government appears to have. The talk about active travel and even public transport appears to be just that – wishful thinking as they’re not funding it). That bit of harm minimisation will retain their danger, their need for space, road damage, tyre and brake particulate emissions (and currently still emit fossil fuels, just elsewhere, directly or in building our nuclear / wind farms etc.), require another resource hunt in the 3rd world / under the oceans for battery materials etc.
chrisonatrike wrote:
How about rigging a pipe from the exhaust so that the driver gets to experience first-hand the toxicity of their actions? Unfortunately, the fumes are so toxic that it would probably be considered murder although it’s legal for the driver to force the rest of us to breathe it in.
(NB. just fitting a pipe from the exhaust would miss out on all the significant pollution from the tyres and brakes)
chrisonatrike wrote:
There’s an inverse-inverse of this in the UK, in that those who can get to work on a cheap Dutch bike or hybrid must live close to the city centre, but those who spend a lot of time on their bike because they don’t live near the city centre tend to have a nice (and probably expensive) road bike.
Their suggested technique
Their suggested technique even means replacing the valve cap.
That seems like a bit of an
That seems like a bit of an overreaction… I’m also pretty sure that common assault and GBH are actually treated more harshly by the courts than “letting someone’s tyres down”.
I’m not a fan of SUVs and can
I’m not a fan of SUVs and can’t for the life of me understand why people choose to drive them in cities, but this is just childish vandalism that does nothing to win hearts and minds. It reeks of jealousy rather than activism.
My hot take is that VED should be based on a car’s weight, energy efficiency and NO2 emmissions. Those are the only things that really matter when it comes to pollution, threat to other road users and wear & tear on the road network.
There’s too much focus on
There’s too much focus on SUVs to my mind, that smacks of jealousy of a kind. The reality is a PHEV based hybrid is going to be better in terms of emissions than a small hatchback with an ICE engine only.
Honestly though I think for the majority of cases driving in London full stop makes no sense. Public transport is served well and reasonably priced in the city, and realistically cycling is quicker in most cases.
While tax is going to need an overhaul the reality is most of not all SUV will be at a price point to have to pay the additional tax for five years.
End of the day though this is just vandalism that’s never going to win people over.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Isnt it more that SUVs are highly visible example of a sort of vehicle which just shouldn’t be in a cramped urban area? They are far too big and wide for a typical British residential street.
brooksby wrote:
Convenient how you erased the part where I said driving in London full stop makes no sense. The car in the photo looks like a Porsche Macan which isn’t actually much bigger than a golf, so yeah totally not about some kind of jealousy. Possibly idiocy from the same ilk that blocked a cooking oil tanker though!
Siding with vigilantes isn’t a good look for the cycling community, but expeceted here on road.cc TBH.
Vigilantes now, I thought you
Vigilantes now, I thought you were going to use the correct terms.
ktache wrote:
*YAWN*
Adam Sutton wrote:
I agree with you on driving in London making no sense (based on the handful of times I’ve been there).
But I disagreed with you on people only hating SUVs because of jealousy, because I thought that was a stupid comment 😉
M’kay?
I’m no gynaecologist but I’m
–
Did we think that the “I’m no
Did we think that the “I’m no gynaecologist, but…” comment was a bit much?
I reckon it’s highly
I reckon it’s highly applicable to a few here. I’d replied to the wrong comment, so I’ll let you be the judge.
ktache wrote:
I saw that and thought it was out-of-place considering Brooksby’s comment was quite polite. Anyhow, Adam Sutton has (rightly) decided to withdraw it.
(I’ve always thought that Brooksby seemed like a nice guy)
hawkinspeter wrote:
I wondered what they’d said. Been out, and came back to see a reply which just said “-“… Can I presume that they were being a bit rude?
brooksby wrote:
You could say that although one word was left unfinished, so maybe I was reading too much into it. It appears as though Adam didn’t intend it for you, but it was “highly applicable to a few here” which has a mysterious air about it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Adam gets pretty cross about most people on here on the basis that they tend to favour bicycling over motoring, and has done since he first appeared not so long ago. It does make one wonder quite why he bothers, I like a vigorous debate but I don’t go on Petrolheads and start having a go at them for preferring cars, it would feel a bit pointless.
Oh you do go on…
Oh you do go on… oh sorry I didn’t read to the end of that sentence.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Adam Sutton wrote:
SUV owner, by any chance?
So are people campaigning for better road safety or gun control are somehow ‘jealous’ because they haven’t killed anyone themselves?
Are those who want fairer taxes and redistribution of extreme wealth secretly wishing they were billionaires and able to exploit tax loopholes?
Is it? I thought this was about SUVs.
Perhaps you are just pretending there isn’t really a massive problem here. Nevertheless, replacing petrol/diesel cars with hybrid or e-cars may only reduce (but not eliminate) one part of a multi-part problem.
How do you know that?
People have said the same about campaigns over the centuries, “nah, you won’t win any friends that way”. Don’t make a fuss, just protest more quietly, and go somewhere else to do it.
Simon E wrote:
Yawn, a tiresome ad hominem response. Change the record.
That is some epic reaching going on there. So, saying there’s too much focus on SUVs somehow I am now against gun control and fair tax campainging LMAO! Oooookay.
I have worked in London for 20 years, the only time I drive is if as is sometimes the case, I have to work out of hours when public transport isn’t running. Like I say, I would sooner see a thought through push to get people out of cars in built up areas like London who really shouldn’t be, than idiotic stunts like this.
There are multiple issues here, and a major one is pollution. Cycle into London on a Sunday and then a weekday and you see and feel the difference. Yes the big aim should be to reduce the number of cars, but better to have a vehicle with no emissions out of the tailpipe.
How do you know that?
People have said the same about campaigns over the centuries, “nah, you won’t win any friends that way”. Don’t make a fuss, just protest more quietly, and go somewhere else to do it.
[/quote]
Righto, vandilism of peoples property is the way forward. I got you. This is about as stupid as the morons that stopped an oil tanker full of cooking oil.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Can’t think of many places in London that aren’t close to a nightbus route, or you could always cycle? (Worked in London thirty-five years and counting, never driven apart from a brief 18-month flirtation with motorcycles)
Err, working in London does
Err, working in London does not necessarily equate to living in London. Back in the real world large parts of the country, even areas just outside of that there London have epically bad public transport. Something people seem ignorant to, probably because like you they seem to live in a fantasy world where everyone has access to the tube and night buses. I can’t even get to my parents 10 miles away after work by bus, they don’t run past about 19:00.
If I’m working at 3am to carry out a critical piece of work I’m going to take the quickest and simplest option, and at that time driving is the answer. Door to door it’s about an hour. Cycling door to door is 30 miles and would take a lot longer.
I’m all for encouraging active travel, reducing car use etc, but people need to wake up to the fact that transport links for many are so infrequent, unreliable and expensive that it just isn’t viable. Sorting that is key, as much as people seem to think cycling is the fix it just isn’t going to work for many, where public transport could. If I go back to the office enough to warrant an annual travel card I’m looking at a cost of over £4000 now.
Adam Sutton wrote:
No. Wondering why you reacted with “There’s too much focus on SUVs to my mind, that smacks of jealousy of a kind”. And you have not answered my question.
No. Read it properly.
I was talking about your inference that people campaigning for change are merely jealous and asking whether you would also accuse people campaigning for other changes (e.g. gun control) to be jealous. Are the Insulate Britain protesters merely jealous of other people’s cold houses? Are the people glueing themselves to petrol pumps merely jealous? Are the climate scientists arrested outside the JP Morgan Chase building in LA last month merely jealous?
Did I say that? No.
I’m not arguing in favour of the group’s actions but suggesting that it’s not merely vandalism.
What kind of meaningful protest would you like to see take place instead? Or should protests not have any real impact?