Tyre Extinguishers strike again, targeting SUVs in wealthy London areas

Adam Sutton wrote:

chrisonatrike 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.

Actually I have, many times.

Well thank you anyway.  I don't know if it makes a difference but engaging with people would seem to be a positive action.

Adam Sutton wrote:

. 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.

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'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:

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.

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. 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:

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!

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:

Adam Sutton wrote:

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!

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).

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:

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.

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 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:

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?

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 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!  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 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:

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.

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 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:

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.

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.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Although oddly often it seems absolutism seems fine when targeted at motorists.

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.

Adam Sutton wrote:

An issue though with cars as a whole is what's the solution?

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:

.

Hatred of motorists underling all this?  Maybe - but that's also shared by non-cycling motorists.

.

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 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:

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.

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 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:

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?

Definitely the second option as you can park the relocated SUV in the space of the next one.

Ha! Caught you!  Impossible as everyone knows there's nowhere to park a normal-sized (?) car these days.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Ha! Caught you!  Impossible as everyone knows there's nowhere to park a normal-sized (?) car these days.

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 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 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 that the Bentley and Lamborghini SUVs are fair game, just for the downright ugliness...

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 Andrew in a disco (other less culpable royals are available)!

Wonder if it has an inability to sweat?

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