- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Deflated SUV in Primrose Hill via Tyre ExtinguishersTyre Extinguishers strike again, targeting SUVs in wealthy London areas
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.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Bungle_52 16 sec ago
Thank you for all the considered comments. I have thought about what happened a great deal over the last few days....
- arowland 5 min 18 sec ago
Engo Eyewear heads up glasses "offer real-time information in your field of vision, such as ... how far it is to the next cafe."...
- Bungle_52 8 min 9 sec ago
Not Scotland and a pedestrian killed, not a cylist but a driver was jailed for dangerous driving today....
- Hirsute 28 min 56 sec ago
She repeatedly says she will scrap ULEZ on day 1 despite being told many, many times that it is not statutorily possible to do this....
- wycombewheeler 58 min 17 sec ago
No, say it ain't so
- Miller 59 min 6 sec ago
No, not that pleasant. Still plenty of cyclists there though.
- 11waterloo 1 hour 21 min ago
I think that is the correct decision. It would put too much emphasis on predicting the break if there were effectively 3 intermediate sprints. The...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 23 min ago
Is that like "pygmy blue whale" - or one of these?
- Hirsute 1 hour 43 min ago
Nine out of ten councils do not plan to increase parking bay sizes...
Add new comment
236 comments
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.
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.
The Russians seem to think it works though and certainly Mr. Assad would concur...
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 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.
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/Mr._A
Let's find ourselves an example shall we:
https://road.cc/content/news/alliance-british-drivers-takes-sheffield-po...
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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
I thought that was rather apt.
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.
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 damaged can a foot pump be used and how many homes have a foot pump handy?
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.
“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 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 so
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.
Why would anyone envy arrogance and stupidity?
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.
Instructions:
"Target posh / middle-class areas."
Directly from their own website.
Just a guess, but I'd say that's where 95% of the SUVs live.
If Cardiff is anything to go by I'd say they are far more widespread than that.
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.
Pages