- 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
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- chrisonabike 5 sec ago
Perhaps someone with the knowledge could comment (I don't have it) but I think there are some significant differences in how and where...
- jamesha100 7 hours 56 min ago
I have been in Belfast for work this week and have been shocked by the congestion around the city centre. There are lots of frustrated drivers...
- David9694 8 hours 18 min ago
Cyclists should be made to have insurance etc https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24757516.four-vehicles-seize...
- matthewn5 9 hours 15 min ago
A friend in my cycling club has a new Ribble Allroad, I think the model with 105, and when I asked how he was finding it (before reading this...
- Rendel Harris 9 hours 24 min ago
Well yes but that's if you're looking at an equation x = n x 3 where n is any number less than 5. If you're looking for a number that is three...
- check12 10 hours 42 min ago
Get them back? They've never gone away for me, cheap tdf winning bikes on eBay with rim brakes and cheap rim brake aero wheels, just don't tell...
- Simon E 11 hours 25 min ago
It used to be called Buy Nothing Day as a protest against the the Black Friday discounting madness. The constant BF adverts, promos and stuff...
- chrisonabike 13 hours 40 min ago
Apologies - you're quite right! Something about presentation and comprehension...
- wtjs 14 hours 1 min ago
You can find out whether they're lying about 'taking action' by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various...
Add new comment
236 comments
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 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 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 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.
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 more pertinent question would be what are you doing?
What the right always do, take every possible solution and find a problem for it that justifies retaining the status quo.
Ooh - another political spectrum one!
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!
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 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.
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 business rates for office space to encourage managers to accept working from home.
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 going bust to have suffered more than a person freezing to death.
Others may disagree.
Criminal damage. Nice, W⚓
...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.
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.
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Also bikes don't cause congestion and cause very little wear on the road.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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'?
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?
Pages