Tyre Extinguishers, the direct action group calling for SUVs to be banned from cities, have struck again, targeting 30 vehicles in London’s upscale Cheyne Walk area in the district of the capital that gave 4x4s their ‘Chelsea Tractor’ nickname.
Members of the group, whom we spoke to last month for an episode of the road.cc Podcast, use dried lentils to deflate tyres of the vehicles to draw attention to their campaign.
They cite research which has found that the collective global emissions produced by SUVs would see the vehicles outranked by only five countries around the world in terms of the pollution they produce.
The group has also highlighted that within the UK, more Range Rovers are registered in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea than in any other local authority area, accounting for one in 10 cars there., and thatn across the country as a whole, three in four SUVs are registered to addresses in towns and cities.
Tyre Extinguishers spokesperson Marion Walker said: “These people live in the dead centre of London with access to copious amounts of public transport. There is no need to own a massive polluting SUV here.”
The group, which has no centralised structure and is active around the world, encourages people to get involved with its campaign by undertaking their own direct actions and leaving a leaflet that can be downloaded from their website to explain to owners of the vehicles why their tyres have been deflated and highlight the effect of SUVs on the planet.
It adds that SUVs are specifically targeted because:
• SUVs are a climate disaster
• SUVs cause air pollution
• SUVs are dangerous
• SUVs are unnecessary.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
123 thoughts on “Tyre Extinguishers target SUVs on home turf of the ‘Chelsea Tractor’”
The site’s ad generator has
The site’s ad generator has just shown me an ad below this article for Vistajet’s new Global 7500 private jet! Seems road.cc is being trolled by its own ads…
I just got an ad for alloy
I just got an ad for alloy wheel refurbishment and an ad for a Lexus 4×4.
Seems Google ads aren’t that clever then…
Subscribe and go mostly ad
Subscribe and go mostly ad free.
Though in those before times I was always amused at the ones attempting to sell me a motor vehicle, especially the flashier marks.
Damaging someone else’s
Damaging someone else’s property is called vandalism and there is no justification. If everyone starts becoming the enforcer of their own opinions society will quickly resemble the far west.
It’s up to elected officials to make legislation and decide what is and what’s not allowed, not to private interest groups, no matter how well intended.
Xenophon2 wrote:
I’m not sure that putting a lentil in someone’s valve cap and tightening the cap back up counts as criminal damage or vandalism. It is however a massive PITA for the person with one of more flat tyres. Good exercise with a footpump (or a track pump) especially an SUV tyre.
‘Going equipped’ with noting more than a thimbleful of lentils would be hard to prove 🙂
Having dealt with such
Having dealt with such incidents, then yes the perpetrators could be charge with vandalism or causing criminal damage.
Xenophon2 wrote:
Can anyone else hear that in Johnny Depp’s voice from Charlie & the Chocolate Factory…? 😉
Let’s trust the government to
Let’s trust the government to look out for our best interests! We’ll be fine! No need for protest, they may as well outlaw it!
Nothing wrong with peaceful
Nothing wrong with peaceful protest.
Vandalism/criminal damage is not peaceful protest.
But it can be protest, right?
But it can be protest, right? Peaceful protest often gets nowhere. Protest should have an effect.
Peaceful, fully authorised and permitted protest being the only acceptable way to do it is just how big corporations and the government would like you to think. We shouldn’t be so naive to think that’s right.
Violence against law abiding
Violence against law abiding fellow citizens is ok as long as the ends justify the means?
Sounds like a delightful society.
Can’t wait to get shanked by a militant vegan as I’m picking up a pint of milk.
Well there’s an example of
Well there’s an example of taking a general point and running with it to an extreme illogical end : ) How can I argue against such a well-honed point (I mean your post, not the shank)?
My point is simply that thinking that a protest is invalid because it steps outside the law is to play right into the hands of those who benefit from limiting protest. A person or organisation could be law-abiding while causing a lot of harm to others who have no legal recourse. People in that situation tend to get angry and look for ways to be heard or force change. Remember that the further up the power chain you go, the better access people and companies have to both the law and the law-makers (this is beyond a few lentils in valve caps but the principle is an imortant one imo).
It’s not an illogical end. It
It’s not an illogical end. It’s actually the logical conclusion.
If violent protest is acceptable then harm to law abiding people is inevitable and therefore also acceptable.
I’m not sure that’s a can of (non vegan) worms that we should be opening.
“Illogical, captain”.
“Illogical, captain”.
Its not a can of worms, it’s
Its not a can of worms, it’s a straw man.
If you think it’s justified
If you think it’s justified to break the law because you don’t like another person’s entirely legal activities then the onus is on you to define what illegal activities are and are not acceptable when faced with such a situation.
Exactly. Luckily our
Exactly. Luckily our government has foreseen exactly this need. If you were wanting a model you could look at existing legislation found here. Of course I’m horsing about – individuals can’t make rules and we certainly can’t break the law because of others’ entirely legal activities we don’t like. So this definitely didn’t happen (enquiry here).
The problem is that elected
The problem is that elected officials are acting so slowly, or not at all, that we’re heading for disaster.
Much as I agree with the need
Much as I agree with the need to curb SUVs and other gas guzzlers I can’t condone the law breaking approach. It would be hypocritical to do so while bemoaning the criminals damaging bollards in LTNs.
The type of campaign
The type of campaign contributes to the successful dissipation of the desire for change to blaming and aggravating individuals over the abstract systems, corporations and values that enable pollution, waste and excess.
TL;DR – Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
People in London tend to use
People in London tend to use cars in a different way to those that live outside the city and there can be very good reason to have a 4×4 if you live in London.
1. For starters you are more likely to be a single car household if you live in London, whereas outside London many households require two or more vehicles to get to work every day.
2. That single car is often used more for longer trips out of London rather than commuting (it’s simply quicker to take public transport and most car owners I know within Zones 1-3 take the tube to work). That means that the vehicles those people drive need to be suitable for taking a family on a long journey (pehaps with a pram, travel carry cot, …and yes also bicycles – these things require space). So whilst yes the owners live in London, a Mini Cooper is not going to be suitable for most of the miles that these vehicles put in and would end up being a second car (taking up more space and all of the waste involved in making a new vehicle)
3. These vehicles may be more polluting per mile but if the drivers do a lot fewer miles per annum then total emissions will be lower than a more environmentally friendly vehicle that’s driven hard. This implies that 4×4 owners aren’t necessarily the biggest contributors but actually mid-size vehicles driven hard to and from work every day outside London. I accept there will always be exceptions to this but the above is my experience.
For reference, I live in London and drive a Tesla Model 3 so am not advocating for myself but am trying to bring a bit of balance in the unlikely hope that one of the people that has been damaging people’s property takes a minute to think things through more carefully.
Unless the driving outside of
Unless the driving outside of London involves trips across fields, there’s still no need for an SUV. And the idea that they are more environmentally friendly than a smaller car “driven hard” is nonsense on stilts.
I don’t think there’s any
I don’t think there’s any need to use pejorative sentences. Simple maths might help us here though for the specific sub-set of range rover drivers and commuters I refer to above (and only for the specific sub-set, which is what the article is referring to and who are the ones being targeted):
Range Rover 3.0l V6 – diesel engine – 228g/km Co2 and 32.5mpg on WLTP
Vauxhall Corsa 1.4li Energy – manual – pertrol – 124g/Km Co2 and 54mpg (claimed)
If the Corsa does 9000 miles a year and the Range Rover does 4500 miles a year then the Corsa emits more Co2 over the year and uses more fuel.
Note that I chose a Vauxhall Corsa here as an extreme to highlight my point – if you were to get into SUV vs estate car (a more fair comparison) then an Audi A6 estate (2l diesel) emits 152g/km Co2 and its fuel consumption drops as well vs the Corsa.
walkopher wrote:
So a Range Rover is more environmentally friendly if you use it half as much? Sorry, I fail to see why that’s an argument for getting an SUV. Why would it be used half as much as a smaller car by any given person deciding which car to purchase?
You’re also failing to factor in the embodied emissions of a much larger vehicle.
No – the argument being made
No – the argument being made is that people who have SUV’s should get rid of them and get something else. Or is letting their tires down just to punish them for having made a decision potentially years ago that the purpetrator doesn’t agree with. If they’re trying to achieve something it’s to get people to change their vehicles. So you have to factor in the additional environmental cost of a new car.
Or are you saying that these people are in the right and that the owners deserve their tyres deflating?
walkopher wrote:
The point is presumably to raise awareness of the issue and put people off buying SUVs. Whilst their tactics are controversial, their aim is laudable. Now tell me again, how is an SUV less polluting than a smaller car?
walkopher wrote:
Frugal compared to the 5 litre v8…
walkopher wrote:
— walkopherMy Dacia Logan turbo petrol 900cc does well over 50mpg and is rated at 109g/km, so it depends which car you select.
None of those is a reason why
None of those is a reason why anyone needs a 4×4 of the type that is being targetted.
Plenty of vehicles that will allow a family plus pram and bikes can go on a bike carrier.
What is the total environmental cost of these vehicles for their whole lifecycle?
What is the environmental cost of the production of your tesla including the batteries ?
Total environmental cost is,
Total environmental cost is, in my view, the correct way to look at it.
In answer to your question on the environmental cost of my Tesla – I have no idea and I’m not an evangalist for the brand / trying to communicate any sense of superiority for having an EV. I simply mentioned that to say that I’m not a driver of an SUV.
It may be that the total environmental cost ends up being higher and worse for the environment than a diesel BMW but that wasn’t what drove my decision. I chose entirely based on company car tax bands and EVs come out much cheaper than both hybrids and ICE vehicles. Within the EVs available I chose a Tesla based on (a) range and (b) the SuperCharger network.
But you haven’t come up with
But you haven’t come up with a reason why a 4×4 is ok, especially when you acknowledge that TEC is the correct way to look at it.
See comments below vs estate
See comments below vs estate vehicles.
The main reasons are greater storage space (see comparison below of range rover luggage capacity vs an Audi A6 Avant as an example), ability to transport more than 5 people, off-road driving when needed, ability to take the force of a collision more effectively than smaller vehicles, upright driving position better for people with certain back / mobility conditions, towing capabilities etc.
My point isn’t that SUV’s are the perfect vehicle for the environment. I clearly couldn’t make a case for that. My point is that they might not be as bad as it would first appear given the needs and usage of some London-based owners. It’s therefore a very simplistic view of the world that the vandals are taking.
The obvious question is then why a Range Rover rather than a Tesla Model X. I think in central London the answer is simple – an insufficient charging network and the prominance of terraced housing / blocks of flats that don’t have garages. Do I think chargers in lamp-posts is the solution – no. The solution is going to be when you can drive 1,000 miles on one charge and people think entirely differently about range and refuelling requirements.
walkopher wrote:
You missed out three times more likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision than a standard saloon.
Why would that be part of
Why would that be part of anyone’s selection criteria? I don’t understand.
walkopher wrote:
You don’t understand why some people might factor in the lethality of their chosen vehicle to others when choosing it? Well well.
I was listing positives and
I was listing positives and you listed a negative (or a positive for other vehicles depending on the way you looked at it). I think what you mean to say is that your use of “you missed out” was sarcastic which I think is an unhelpful tone to have in a discussion.
The thing is, we’ll all be
The thing is, we’ll all be under water or burning by the time you’ve finished hedging and waffling and defending the indefensible.
Thanks for the reminder –
Thanks for the reminder – forgot to mention that SUVs have deeper water clearance.
I’m also not trying to defend buying an SUV, I’m trying to make the point that the world isn’t black and white and the fact that an SUV is in London doesn’t mean it isn’t needed by its owner and that they aren’t driven every day. Damaging those vehicles on the basis that they’re an off-road car in London is a very basic view of the world.
Or are you trying to condone the behaviour described in the article? Sounds like you’re trying to defend that behaviour which I would consider to be indefensible.
Is this in case their holiday
Is this in case their holiday means they have to use rufford ford?
Other vehicles are available for this family of 6 or 7.
I’m sorry, this is snarky but
I’m sorry, this is snarky but I couldn’t resist:
Are things as bad as that down there? I thought Scottish roads were a trifle “gravel-oriented”…
Actually SUVs are far more
Actually SUVs are far more likely roll over in a collision, causing more serious injuries, due to their high center of gravity and tendency to mount the other vehicle.
hirsute wrote:
You’re also guilty of the same thing the protestors are – self selecting a sub-set of SUV’s that you can have a go at. The vast majority dont have 4 wheel drive and are not designed to go off road. Thinking thats why they are bought is just making the same mistake the protestors are. Dont forget that SUV quite often covers 4×4 and what were formerly known as People Carriers.
The best selling UK SUV is the Nissan Qashqai (3rd overall) – you want to bet whether they are getting their tyres let down? That’s inspite of the fact that there is evidence showing up until recent its got probably one of the worse real world emmissions out there compounded by the sheer volume of them on the road.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news/2019/07/24/nissan-rejects-government-suggestion-on-qashqai-emissions
I say again. Its envy being (ironically) greenwashed.
I didn’t mention any makes or
I didn’t mention any makes or models and I was responding to someone who used the term 4×4 and mentioned their Tesla
All I mentioned was total cost of ownership.
I made no comments on the rights or wrongs of the group.
walkopher wrote:
Just for interest, here’s a snap from the days before we gave up having a car: my road bike and my wife’s in the boot of our Smart ForTwo. It takes a little more effort and imagination; it doesn’t take an SUV.
Where do the children go? Or
Where do the children go? Or have you had to fold down all the seats to get sufficient storage?
walkopher wrote:
That was a two seater car. However we later had a Smart ForFour which could still take two bikes in the boot and three kids in the back, or even three adults at a squeeze, and if luggage room was required we had an external rack for the bikes. “I need an SUV to carry XYZ” is a pretty lame excuse.
Car seat rules changed in
Car seat rules changed in 2018 (four years after the ForFour was introduced) and so they became much less practical once you factor in booster seats being banned for children under 1.25m. Not to mention what if you have a pram with basonette etc.
You’re going to put your back
You’re going to put your back out if you keep on moving the goalposts so often, you know.
Roof rack.
Roof rack.
A typical estate car has more
A typical estate car has more storage space than a typical SUV of similar exterior length and width. This is because SUVs have raised floorpans to account for the 4×4 transmission. Most SUVs aren’t actually that roomy inside in comparison with other vehicles of the same width and length.
That may be the case, but
That may be the case, but then the argument is against cross-overs rather than SUVs. A Range Rover has 900l luggage space vs an Audi A6 Avant which has 586l.
Alternatively in 5 seat configuration (the same number of seats as the Audi) a Land Rover Discovery has 1,137 litres of storage and the option of reducing that but carrying 6 or 7 people (in some cases that’s the difference between needing 1 car or 2 cars for a journey).
Again, this is for quite a specific set of buyers and specific set of use cases though.
How often do you really need
How often do you really need to be able to carry 7 people? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to ahve a smaller vehicle and then rent a larger one when required?
SUVs also have a poor crash record. Because they’re higher, they’re far more dangerous for pedestrians. The raised floorpan means they have a higher centre of gravity and are therefore more likely to roll. Porsche had to throw a whole of of costly and complex technology at its SUVs to make sure they didn’t suffer from rollovers. They often perform very poorly in crash testing also when compared to conventional cars. The perception they give of safety and protection for the owners often isn’t justified.
I don’t condone slashing tyres, far from it. But at the same time, i think anyone who owns an SUV and doesn’t actually need one is selfish. And that’d apply to around 90% of SUV owners most likely.
Discos can carry 7 people,
Discos can carry 7 people, and that’s your best argument? But in reality they carry one person, occasionally two, to buy a pint of milk from the local shop.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Before I got rid of it to go car-less our Mondeo estate was cavernous and did 50mpg. A much more practical car than any SUV unless of course you’re driving over a ploughed field (which I’m sure they all do on a regular basis).
iandusud wrote:
Exactly this….
These people leave me with a
These people leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. They are using SUV’s as a proxy for “rich people” (coz its only some SUV’s) and there’s a huge chunk of envy in their actions.
I wish they’d bugger off back to gluing themselves to motorways. At least then they have skin in the game. Pun intended.
Apparently its dangerous to leave a car on deflated tyres for more than a day. (per google), in which case this edges towards vandalism. The irony being those cars that get vandalised are the ones moving less and ironically the less polluting ones.
” The irony being those cars
” The irony being those cars that get vandalised are the ones moving less and ironically the less polluting ones.”
Not so fast… An SUV creates about 35 tons of CO2e during manufacturing, a small car about 6 tons. So about 6 times more.
If that small car is electric, then the future emissions will be close to zero.
https://www.hotcars.com/the-truth-about-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-new-car-that-no-ones-talking-about/
I feel as soon as you’re
I feel as soon as you’re arguing about “carbon calculations” that it’s not just that hand-waving has begun but an opportunity has silently been passed over. Like arguing about whether it’s more ethical to eat pork or lamb; there is a vegetarian option… Anyway harm minimization, yes. It’s worth quoting the end of the article you link to for perspective:
So a good percentage difference – although I’d love to see the error bars there. There’s quite a bit of assumption necessary for the emissions impact of the electricity!
How much was a bike again? (For more detail here’s some life-cycle analysis)
We need to move towards
We need to move towards having a much greater understanding of the full impact of the products we buy including Scope 3 type emmisions. It’s not well understood right now, but it should be. Attempts at more accuracy feel like the opposite of hand waving.
But yes, all cars come out badly in this comparison, but for sure the bigger the worse. And I will certainly consider the environmental impact of my next bike, and regret not having done so before.
Normally I’d say “more
Normally I’d say “more understanding better”. However with carbon emissions not only are people commonly presenting suspiciously precise numbers for what are rather complex calculations on variable datasets. More – lots of this is subject to future uncertainties. The best of these prognostications are always careful to list assumptions and limit themselves to careful, relative comparisons.
Even given that though it seems to me the whole purpose of the business is predicated on an assumption of “we’ll go along as before, just trim things a bit here and there”. Sort of calorie counting without really changing your diet or lifestyle. “I’ll have a pepsi instead of a coke”. Although that’s a practical and understandably human perspective. If things hold steady enough until you and I are dead we don’t need to worry about what happens later. It’s only if you’re bothered about your children, or your grandkids…
Since so much of the lifetime
Since so much of the lifetime CO2 is generated during manufacture then with respect to CO2 the best thing people who need a vehicle and cant afford a new BEV (the vast majority of us) can do is to keep their current vehicle for as long as possible and stop buying a new car every 3 years on HP deals. It saves CO2 and is chaeper in the long run too.
In an ideal world we’d be
In an ideal world we’d be able to cycle the last mile, have a small electric car either on the drive or available on demand for day to day stuff and a honking great eSUV on some sort shared ownership plan/hireable when you have to take the family plus dogs camping in the boonies.
Unfortunately we have a way to go on all 3 of those objectives today. Just try hiring a fully electric car outside of a few specialists and city locations. Even most of the car share clubs expect to do subscribe for an occasional usage which is pants. I just want to pay and go.
Yet more uncritical coverage
Yet more uncritical coverage of this, rather unpleasant, group.
Have a look at the ‘Tyre Extinguishers’ Twitter feed and website if you want to know what this group is really about.
It’s just greenwashing vandalism.
Greenwashing vandalism – it’s
Greenwashing vandalism – it’s a growing problem.
I had a look at their website
I had a look at their website – didn’t seem appalling e.g. it’s not immediately obvious they’re neo-Nazis / a front for Tesla / being run by the Chinese government. Although that doesn’t demonstrate much. I’m not a twitterer so can’t speak for that. I’ll need convincing about some of the claims made there though. And as many people have pointed out “SUV” can be a rather arbitrary and sometimes inaccurate proxy for “the worst polluting vehicles”.
Ah – maybe this was the particularly offensive part (apart from incitement to do it)?
But also:
Having said all that if we’re
Having said all that if we’re doing “global warming belt-tightening” it’s definitely the rich who are the best target for a resource diet – we’re also those who can most easily change. We? In global terms “rich polluter” actually includes much of the population of the UK – there’s an uncomfortable truth.
If you think they are
If you think they are greenwashing, you don’t understand the meaning of the term ‘greenwashing’.
“A form of marketing spin in
“A form of marketing spin in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization’s products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly.”
Eg
We want to vandalise rich people’s property.
*Apply greenwashing*
“SUVs are a climate disaster
• SUVs cause air pollution
• SUVs are dangerous
• SUVs are unnecessary.”
Therefore we’re going to vandalise rich people’s property.
For the logic to flow you
For the logic to flow you have to demonstrate your first assertion though e.g. show that “let’s attack the rich via letting down their tyres” is the primary aim. Maybe that part was on Twitter?
For all I know that may be the hidden agenda. I just haven’t seen that demonstrated anywhere. I guess that it’s even likely that one or more people are doing this for that reason. They might have been doing that before there were “tyre extinguishers” too. It being a “decentralised group” it cuts both ways of course – so I suppose I’m asking about the people behind the website, that being their “face”.
They clearly state on their
They clearly state on their website that they target “posh” areas.
They also gloat about targeting wealthy areas on their Twitter account.
There’s obviously no environmental justification for such an approach thus revealing their ulterior motive.
Rich_cb wrote:
Apart from the fact that the rich pollute much, much more than the poor; seems pretty obvious to me.
A rich person’s SUV pollutes
A rich person’s SUV pollutes more than a poor persons SUV?
It takes up more road space?
Didn’t think so.
Not sure that “proves” it
Not sure that “proves” it exactly. Might be a front for the Maoist party of the UK, might be squabblesome malcontents, may be people who think that SUVs are OTT. I guess in Edinburgh (don’t know London) they wouldn’t find that many SUVs to target in Muirhouse or Wester Hailes but more in the “posher” areas of Edinburgh – makes sense for them to go to where there were more SUVs, no?
In the bigger picture environmental issues are actually inseperable from considerations of distribution of resources – wealth, broadly. Clearly people targetting other’s property based on that property being a conspicuous symbol of wealth makes people immediately think of revolutions. Isn’t some of the impetus for doing something about the climate here merely enlightened self-interest by us rich westerners to avoid them?
At least in the UK the longer term predictions are that yes, we’ll flood more and have less certain weather but we won’t desertify, lose all our (arable) land underwater. Crops will still grow here. Isn’t the point as much about getting our act together voluntarily before the real poor kick off? Those in much of the southern hemisphere, southern Europe, the middle east – who will have even less fresh water / food / land to live on so migration would increase massively and violent political instability likely come a lot closer?
(Aside: does “poor SUV owner” even make sense? There’s hire-purchase of course and I’m sure there are plenty who might consider themselves poor. Obviously it’s a relative term… but I’d suggest anyone in the UK who can afford to keep one running is in global terms pretty rich.)
Of course logically we could
Of course logically we could say “but any such ‘diet’ change is impossible we’ll always lose that battle to our own rich”. Or even our own poor, because they can’t get beyond being jealous of our own rich. Or just motorists in general [1] [2]. Or that we’d be better to invest in methods of helping the leaders of poor countries keep their own populations / regions in check. Or just impressing on them that they’ve got no chance of effectively getting anything from us that we don’t give them – because we’ll always win the battle.
I hope I haven’t just answered my own questions there.
We’re not talking in global
We’re not talking in global terms in this instance.
I’d agree that on a global scale every single person in the UK is fabulously wealthy but Tyre Extinguishers are specifically targeting the richer areas of Europe.
SUVs made up 44% of European car sales last year so the idea that it’s only the very wealthiest buying them is clearly false.
As I said before, there’s no environmental justification for targeting SUVs in wealthy areas only.
I’d rather they were guerilla
I’d rather they were guerilla cycle lane builders (“but the poor people won’t be able to get through! It’ll delay emergency vehicles – and health and crime issues predominantly affect the poorest!”). Breaking things is easier than creating them mostly though.
Back to it then. I thought the issue of global heating (or whatever the preferred term) was … global? Can you explain how one could act globally in this case then?
They do cite particulates and the other inconveniences and dangers from large vehicles on their website. So for that it would be fair to say that they were acting locally to address a local problem. For the “climate” part of it, it would be logical to act more widely. Maybe some kind of decentralised movement – so people didn’t waste resources travelling to these actions – would be the logical way to go…?
Of course since greenhouse gases diffuse I suppose an apt choice would be for them to start photosynthesizing or – better – simply persuade others to change their habits. On which:
> SUVs made up 44% of European car sales last year so the idea that it’s only the very wealthiest buying them is clearly false.
We’re back to semantics (“very wealthiest”) but then it seems this always was about that. (“very few people who can’t afford SUVs are buying them” isn’t surprising). That statistic is consistent with it indeed being the wealthiest globally. So this debate is about slicing and dicing of the categories of “wealthy” within the UK then – something we certainly love to do here. Personally I’m not sure about “poor SUV owners” but then “poor” is a relative term of course.
What are useful questions? “How can we persuade people to reduce some of their resource usage?” I’m pretty sure any “solutions” will need that unless we just wait until consequences hit us and change happens by fiat. Second – how do we get around people resisting change using the excuse that the wealthier (pick who you want – almost everyone can…) are more profligate than we are and it’s not fair?
chrisonatrike wrote:
It seems there’s a movement in the U.S. to paint crosswalks: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/04/06/how-to-paint-your-own-crosswalk-in-your-neighborhood-hypothetically/
https://crosswalksla.org/
However, LA has decided to remove the unauthorised painting: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/20/1100398406/la-removes-crosswalks-painted-secretive-group-promises-traffic-circle
It’s an interesting approach as the U.S. junctions assign priority to pedestrians at them anyway, so the crosswalk painting is really just highlighting that fact. I believe that officials aren’t best amused by them as they don’t control the quality of the painting and paint used (hope it doesn’t get slippery when wet).
Another vicious circle! As
Another vicious circle! As the width of the roads go up (I think the US averages rather wide ones – it’s the home of the stroad) the time it takes for a pedestrian to cross goes up. That means more irritation for waiting drivers and temptation to blow through the signal. Also I suspect that this means that to keep “vehicle throughput” up the time between pedestrian cycles must be increased. So now everyone’s vexed.
To try to move on the US has brought in “Leading Pedestrian Intervals” in some places. Not sure about the safety implications of that. I know that sometimes you can get somewhere by playing with traffic light patterns and phasing [1] [2] [3]. However always good to remind yourself that traffic lights are motor vehicle infra though…
It’s clear this world is for spring-heeled Jack. For me the next move in this arms race is stilts.
chrisonatrike wrote:
You don’t need stilts if you can jump well enough
If roughly half of all new
If roughly half of all new cars are SUVs then that means a similar proportion of used cars are too.
Ergo SUVs aren’t a problem that’s exclusive to rich areas of the UK.
So why target rich areas?
If they also target hybrid and electric SUVs then CO2 emissions can’t be their target either.
The PM 2.5 argument is ok but if that’s your concern new EVs are probably going to be better than most old ICE cars as there’ll be no exhaust particulate emissions and the regenerative braking eliminates a lot of the brake pad wear especially in a major city.
Targeting SUVs in rich areas makes little sense again. I’d imagine EV SUVs are far more common in rich areas than poor ones.
It’s almost like the environmental aspect is just an excuse to vandalise the property of people they dislike/envy.
“Our chief motivation is envy
“Our chief motivation is envy, envy and dislike, dislike and envy – our two motivations are envy and dislike and a desire to bring down the capitalist system – Our three motivations are envy, dislike and a desire to bring down the capitalist system and a general concern about large vehicles. Our … Four … No… Amongst our motivations are …”
chrisonatrike wrote:
i wasn’t expecting that…
mark1a wrote:
Strap him to… the heated car seat!
I’m now going to stop
I’m now going to stop responding to comments on my original post and go and have a cup of tea in peace. Unfortunately it seems that there’s quite a lot of support for vandalising people’s property on this website which is a real shame.
Reading through the list of replies to my original post I can’t help but think if anyone from Tyre Extinguishers was to read the comments on this article then they would take encouragement from it and feel emboldened to damage more cars. That is a real shame as we live in a society where law should provide order. Perhaps they may even go after all ICE vehicles that may well include yours. I will rest easy though knowing my EV is safe from it all.
And to think people used to
And to think people used to say much the same thing about those maddening souls who thought women should be able to cast a vote.
walkopher wrote:
I’ve just scrolled through the comments and there are three of the fifty-nine thus far that could be interpreted as offering qualified support for the Tyre Extinguishers’ campaign. There are many correctly pointing out the selfishness and stupidity of large SUVs, but that’s not supporting the actions of that particular group (as I don’t). Guess it’s easier to play the victim card by saying, untruthfully, that many on this site support vandalism rather than truthfully reflecting the comments by acknowledging that many/most believe large SUVs are selfish and unnecessary.
The thing is, we’re in deep
The thing is, we’re in deep trouble with global heating. The law is not keeping up with what needs to happen, so it’s not surprising if various forms of non-violent protest start happening.
Exactly. The people who
Exactly. The people who respond to protests of this nature with “WhY dOn’T ThEy pRoTesT PeaCeFulLy!?!?” don’t seem to realise that people have been peacfully protesting enviromental damage/climate change for more than 50 years now, and they’ve been totally ignored by the world at large. Is it any surprise that the methods employed by XR and similar groups are getting a little more… overt?
I’m not going to suggest that people rush out and start damaging particularly polluting cars – but I will say that if we, as a society, are siding with the people who are buying V8-powered, 3-tonne tanks when they live in a city with decent public transport, then the penny doesn’t seem to have dropped for us yet.
I say this as a school
I say this as a school teacher who talks to young children every day so believe me when I say that history is FULL of examples where protest and resistance are the only ways that change has been achieved.
Struggling to find any
Struggling to find any sympathy for people who live in RBKC and drive/own Range Rovers.
I think I’d be happy if they
I think I’d be happy if they targeted this driver
Cycle only lane, pavement, live cable left over the pavement.
hirsute wrote:
im shocked it has both wing mirrors still attached. Really easy to wobble into them just there I’d have thought.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh Nooo! That’d be private property damage!
**clutches pearls dramatically**
Pearls?! To the scaffold!
Pearls?! To the scaffold!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Guillotine, surely? Getting the pearls off would be difficult with a rope around their neck, but without a head…..
eburtthebike wrote:
The guillotine did actually stand on a scaffold (French échafaud)…
Rendel Harris wrote:
Not enough road tax (sic)!
Not enough road tax (sic)!
Compare whatever the annual vehichle duty in the UK is for a top of the line 3.0L Range Rover swankypanzer is to the taxation here in NL (Amsterdam for this car): drum roll…… 2520 euro per year. And fuel is of course taxed higher in NL.
Yep – we tax the bejezuz out of those fools. I would double it personally to 5k a year if I was in power. If they would be forced to pay that much tax just to drive to Harrods every now and then I am OK with it.
joe9090 wrote:
This. If we can’t stop people driving these monstrosities at least make them pay something towards the cost of the damage they are doing. Where I live a Range Rover seems to be the car that so many people aspire to, and not only the rich. I live in one of the cheaper neighbourhoods and yet the number of Range Rovers and other luxury cars I see parked on peoples drives is astounding, often with their houses in a state of disrepair. I recnetly noticed one run down house nearby with a Range Rover AND a Porshe Cayenne on the drive! What is wrong with these people?
My morning commute takes me
My morning commute takes me through some of the less salubrious areas of town and I pass several houses like that.
I wonder if it’s because money laundering regulations apply when you buy a hous but not when you buy a car?
Maybe they are levelling
Maybe they are levelling themselves up? There were a few obviously more expensive cars round my old estate – not a “salubrious” place (though I didn’t have any trouble aside from the dogshit, smells and noise. I just stayed away from large collections of youths).
Oddly one or two didn’t seem to be driving to an office, factory, restaurant, hospital or building site during the day – often mostly round the estate (WFH, that’s how I know). Never figured that out.
How many people actually buy
How many people actually buy a car these days? I thought at least 90% rent them – a way to achieve status.
We’ve always held onto a car until it is uneconomic to maintain and I hope the currrent car will be the last one we have.
I think those stats cover all
I think those stats cover all purchases, leases, HP etc.
I have known a few people who
I have known a few people who didn’t own a house or even rent but lived out of their vehicles if that’s a helpful data point? A Luton truck, a canal boat and a van if I recall. I seriously dobut any of them were in the target market for SUVs though.
My neighbour opposite has
My neighbour opposite has those cars out front, it’s probably the cheapest street in the area. The daughter doesn’t possess a winter coat and wears plimsolls like we did in the 80s. Priorities completely wrong
Pyro Tim wrote:
Well, they wouldn’t spend so much on advertising if it didn’t work
Maybe – but maybe not
Maybe – but maybe not entirely. Because “fake it before you make it” sometimes applies to humans. Recall Primo Levi’s “The Truce”:
From Wikipedia reference here (part paywalled): https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/1670/the-art-of-fiction-no-140-primo-levi
Pyro Tim wrote:
joe9090 wrote:
— joe9090So that’s how they pay for the cycle lanes.
Some places believe they “pay
Some places believe they “pay for themselves” [1]. People are even keen on the numbers in reports compiled for the UK government.
The full picture of course is you only get the benefit if you have mass cycling. That needs a functioning network of cycle infrastructure above a minimum quality. Plus the means to safely leave / store bikes at either end. That means more up-front cost than the UK government has ever shelled out for cycling. It’s just cheap (a net benefit) in comparison to what you get if you just put in motoring infrastructure.
They should just cut to the
They should just cut to the chase and eat the rich
Looking at their rudimentary
Looking at their rudimentary website it seems that it’s not just SUVs they are targetting:
“Hybrids and electric cars are fair game. We cannot electrify our way out of the climate crisis – there are not enough rare earth metals to replace everyone’s car and the mining of these metals causes suffering. Plus, the danger to other road users still stands, as does the air pollution (PM 2.5 pollution is still produced from tyres and brake pads).”
A hybrid or electric SUV is
A hybrid or electric SUV is a SUV. Too many TLAs but do you mean an ICE SUV?
(And yes – I did see this and was momentarily surprised.)
Well it says ‘hybrid and
Well it says ‘hybrid and electric cars’…so not even SUVs….just vehicles in general that use precious earths…. I wonder if I should start an anarcho-syndicalist movement targeting housing with less than an EPC rating of B? They certain emit more CO2 than my car which is parked 25 days a month…
Seems entirely legit.
Seems entirely legit.
If you just target expensive houses road.cc might even give you some coverage.
Chris Hayes wrote:
That’s the elephant in the room with EVs – how do we recycle the batteries when they lose their effectiveness?
https://hackaday.com/2021/07/15/recycling-will-be-key-to-the-electric-vehicle-future/
hawkinspeter wrote:
That’s the elephant in the room with EVs – how do we recycle the batteries when they lose their effectiveness?
[/quote]And the other elephant, congestion, which EVs will make worse.
eburtthebike wrote:
Only if you think purely in terms of cars. E-scooters and e-bikes are also electric vehicles, but they should help with congestion. Also, as they are significantly smaller, the recycling problem is substantially reduced.
I’ve always thought that EVs
I’ve always thought that EVs are fine until everyone wants one….then you have grid issues. The counter-argument is, of course, that EVs can sell energy back to the grid when not in use – and the batteries can be used in static power packs once they’re no longer capable of powering a vehicle. But that’s the future.
We’ve been considering an EV for a while now (well, a Tesla as no one else has a supercharger network), but our driving patterns – long infrequent journeys with a car full of weekend and holiday acoutrements – don’t really lend themselves to it….
We’re in exactly the same
We’re in exactly the same boat. Barely any use for a car during the week apart from emergency school runs, 40 weekends a year need 4 seat kid transporter, 10 weekends a year we need a Estate/SUV class boot space to transport 2 kids and 2 dogs 300 miles for various leisure and family occasions.
We currently have an ICE estate!
Exactly that…plus bikes,
Exactly that…plus bikes, canoes, tents, etc. and the coffee machine when we go to France on holiday! Just popped down to the garage to have a look around one of my neighbour’s Tesla X…. they don’t wear well….May as well run mine into the ground now…or until someone bans it. Or makes me put a sail on it.
Nissan are reselling used
Nissan are reselling used batteries as home storage.
They can also be dissolved and then recycled apparently but I dread to think the chemicals involved in that.
Yep – in theory the older
Yep – in theory the older lead-acid were at least entirely recyclable. Unfortunately – like most “mainstream” technologies – loss rates even in more “controlled” environments were significant and lead is not a good pollutant to deal with. However although lithium is much nicer the recycling issue is not practical as yet and you still get some bonus heavy metals with them.
Trawling tech history a power “dead end” at the time was compressed air – used for both static power and motor vehicles. There has been some experimental interest more recently. Clear environmental win in that that aside from the tank and general vehicle materials the working fluid is available everywhere and environmentally innocuous. The downside as usual is energy density.