Tyre Extinguishers strike again, targeting SUVs in wealthy London areas

Rendel Harris wrote:

Backladder wrote:

there are lies, dammed lies and statistics, if you choose carefully who you sit beside as a passenger you are unlikely to die whatever vehicle they happen to be driving. Surely this statement is just like the press blaming the vehicle for the 'accident'?

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?

The point is that (assuming a roadworthy vehicle) the driver is by far the most important consideration for safety rather than vehicle type and that I suspect your 'SUV 11% more dangerous' statistic is missing some caveats.

Backladder wrote:

The point is that (assuming a roadworthy vehicle) the driver is by far the most important consideration for safety rather than vehicle type and that I suspect your 'SUV 11% more dangerous' statistic is missing some caveats.

See my reply to Chris Hayes below for a fuller explanation of the stats. But yes, of course safer driving is the most important factor in preventing injuries and fatalities. However, until there are no cars on the road at all there will always be incidents, and if with one vehicle type fatalities are significantly more likely (hugely more likely for those in other vehicles or walking and cycling) then that must be a cause for concern. One factor being more important than another doesn't mean one should disregard the lesser factor, e.g. would you say because safer driving that avoids incidents is the most important factor we can forget about having safety cages or seatbelts?

Seatbelts may be a step too far but I would love to be able to buy a car without the safety cage, side intrusion, airbags and all the other safety related kit which just sits there passively for the life of the car wasting fuel because it is being carried around. Check out the scrapyards and the vast majority of this kit is never used and if drivers did not have it providing them with a sense of invulnerability they might take more care. It would make cars lighter, more fuel efficient and probably more interesting to drive, the most fun I ever had in a car was in a lotus 7 fitted with a motorbike engine which weighed about 450kg.

Backladder wrote:

Seatbelts may be a step too far but . . . . 

Or not far enough. how about no seatbelts, very weak seat brackets and a 10 inch rusty spike in the centre of the steering wheel? It would finally make drivers feel the same danger every car journey puts others in.

Safe drivers would drive even more carefully and dangerous drivers, well, there would be less of them on the road every day. Win win!

Oh, and a bonus would be walking, cycling and public transport suddenly becoming very appealing to drivers.

...whereas Michelin says that...  'In fact, research has found that an SUV driver or passenger is at least 50 percent more likely to survive a car crash without suffering serious injuries than an individual riding in a saloon.'.... I'll go with Michelin. 

But are they maybe more likely to be in a crash?

Chris Hayes wrote:

...whereas Michelin says that...  'In fact, research has found that an SUV driver or passenger is at least 50 percent more likely to survive a car crash without suffering serious injuries than an individual riding in a saloon.'.... I'll go with Michelin. 

The research to which Michelin refers shows that in an SUV vs normal sedan crash, the SUV passengers are 50% more likely to survive. That is not by any means the whole picture though, because it was also shown that when an SUV hits an SUV, there is a greater likelihood of passenger/driver mortality than in a sedan/sedan collision. SUVs are also more prone to rollover in single-vehicle incidents, increasing their mortality rate. It's also worth noting that the 50% more likely to survive figure for SUV/sedan incidents primarily derives from the fact that due to their greater weight and height SUVs tend to roll over the top of sedans, crushing and killing the sedan occupants and saving the SUV occupants. I don't know about you, but making myself safer by driving a vehicle that is more likely to kill others wouldn't be a moral tradeoff I'd be happy to live with.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I don't know about you, but making myself safer by driving a vehicle that is more likely to kill others wouldn't be a moral tradeoff I'd be happy to live with.

Reminds me of the American woman who survived a crash because she was driving an SUV and the other people weren't, and her response was to buy a bigger SUV.

I'd better get a tank. I hear there are a few available some way east of the UK.

eburtthebike wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

I don't know about you, but making myself safer by driving a vehicle that is more likely to kill others wouldn't be a moral tradeoff I'd be happy to live with.

Reminds me of the American woman who survived a crash because she was driving an SUV and the other people weren't, and her response was to buy a bigger SUV.

Seems logical to me, but I'd prefer if people focussed on not crashing

Where do you live Rendel?  Perhaps we mean different things when we say SUV? And as for safety, I'm afraid my family's safety is paramount and if you see that as a moral trade-off, it is one that I would make.  There are lots of bad drivers where I live in Central London.

Fortunately, the only serious accident we've had is when we were T-boned by a van driver (trying to make fantasy delivery deadlines) who chose to run a red-light... We had an A8 at the time and all walked away. 

Chris Hayes wrote:

Where do you live Rendel?  Perhaps we mean different things when we say SUV? And as for safety, I'm afraid my family's safety is paramount and if you see that as a moral trade-off, it is one that I would make.  There are lots of bad drivers where I live in Central London.

We all have our moral red lines.  (Recalling how that declines - my morals, your tendencies, their whims).  But why stop at a whatever you mean by a SUV?  Surely it's possible to get safer?  Isn't that the next logical step? The question is how do we break out of the bigger / faster / heavier / better protection vehicle arms race.

I agree that's not something you can do unilaterally and keep the rest of your life the same BTW.

I don't like how I have become a spokesman for SUVs, but I think a reasonableness test is required here. 

Indeed  And I'm not about to go around putting potatoes in exhaust pipes myself.  I do go around on a bike though.  That fails the reasonableness test for some (getting in their way, causing polution because slowing others down etc.).  I also run errands on a bike, often without a helmet.  That fails the reasonableness test for many (possibly endangering pedestrians, endangering myself and thus potentially tying up NHS resources etc).

SUVs would be - if cars didn't all keep getting bigger - just a particularly visible aspect of some much bigger issues.  It is a choice however.  It happens to be a choice of richer / more priveledged / those less affected by the problems their choice causes which I'd say has bearing.

My cycling is a choice too of course and little to do with anything "moral" as I doubt I'd force myself if I didn't really enjoy it.  Would I be pissed off if someone let down my bike tyres in a direct action protest (to "protect pedestrians" or whatever)?  Yes and obviously it'd take me less time to reinflate than a ranger rover and I'm more ready to do so.  If I had a SUV I doubt I'd be unable to call a cab / sort out immediate alternatives though.

I would suggest SUV means the big four by four wannabees you see everywhere ranging from Jukes upto a Q series/ Cayenne. 

As for safety, they might not seem as safe as you believe in certain crashes. 

Perhaps in the UK, but elsewhere in the Anglosphere you'd have to include F150s, Chevvy Silverados, and Dodge Journeys and the like... much bigger. 

When it comes to Jukes and Cayennes I really don't see the issue. The volume / capacity of a Juke is less than a Ford Focus (its just higher, that's all) and Cayenne is about the same as 5 series (apart from the height) - both of which are not being targeted.

Chris Hayes wrote:

The volume / capacity of a Juke is less than a Ford Focus (its just higher, that's all) and Cayenne is about the same as 5 series (apart from the height) - both of which are not being targeted.

The height of SUVs is the principal problem with them in terms of the safety of more vulnerable road users, because they usually strike pedestrians at or above hip height, pushing them down under the wheels, whereas ordinary cars usually hit at or below the thigh and send the victim up over the bonnet. That's why you're three times more likely to die if hit by an SUV than by an ordinary saloon.

I also live in Central London, where my wife and I are constantly endangered when cycling by bad drivers, many in 4x4s that pass closer than others due to their width and the incapacity of the drivers to cope with the size of their vehicle. Speeds in London are not high enough for you to need the overkill protection of an SUV. 

"I'm afraid my family's safety is paramount..." Even if it makes it much, much more likely that other people will be killed or seriously injured in any incidents involving your vehicle? That's not a moral tradeoff, that's moral bankruptcy and staggering selfishness. I wonder how you would feel if one of your family was knocked down by a 4x4, and so suffered much more serious injuries than they would if hit by an ordinary car, that had been bought by someone else who decided they were happy with the "moral tradeoff" of making themselves and their family safer at the expense of the safety of others?

Muddy Ford wrote:

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. 

The paper figures might say that but they are generated to a formula; I would suggest that in a real-world scenario, say a London rush hour, where the bike can be almost continuously moving and the SUV will be idling or crawling 75% of the time, the bike will use less fuel.

In any case, that's not really an argument in favour of SUVs, is it, that someone else has worse mileage? I expect you also have colleagues who drive small hatchbacks with much better mileage that don't contribute to congestion by being so wide they effectively convert any two-way street into a one way and that are very significantly less likely to kill or seriously injure if involved in a collision with a pedestrian. SUVs in cities are a yacht in a bathtub, they're not appropriate, they're more dangerous and for 99% they're just a status symbol where a smaller, cleaner car would suit their needs just as well. 

There is no doubt that SUVs ARE worse in terms of fossil fuel energy used to build them, and the petrol/diesel that powers them.

It takes more energy to move something that is heavier; they are also spectacularly un-aerodynamic, which adds to their fuel inefficiency.

Add to this the fact that they are more likely to kill or seriously injure a person on foot or on a bike in the event of a crash, and it is obvious that it's time we got rid of them as urban vehicles.

Troon wrote:

I think it's really important for publications such as this to distance themselves from illegal activists, no matter how people feel about it personally.

Really? Without commenting on this particular group, as a general principle that would be cowardly, if one believes a cause is just then one should support those who take action on its behalf. Numerous groups that history has shown to be in the right - suffragetes, for example - were "illegal activists" at the time.

Rendel Harris wrote:

if one believes a cause is just then one should support those who take action on its behalf

You're saying the ends justify the means?

Sriracha wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

if one believes a cause is just then one should support those who take action on its behalf

You're saying the ends justify the means?

That phrase has obviously become discredited by its use by evil people, but sometimes the end does justify the means, e.g. the Black Rights movement in America achieved the end of removing official racial discrimination by the means of peaceful civil disobedience, I don't think many would disagree that end justified those means, would they? 

Really Troon?  Don't you like to think that if Guy Fawkes was around now that publications would show him a bit of support? 

Welsh boy wrote:

Really Troon?  Don't you like to think that if Guy Fawkes was around now that publications would show him a bit of support? 

"The last man to have entered Parliament with honourable intentions."

Troon wrote:

I think it's really important for publications such as this to distance themselves from illegal activists, no matter how people feel about it personally. The last thing we need is more fuel on the fire (no pun intended) of hatred towards cyclists — "you jump the lights *and* let tyres down".

That sounds rather like demanding that 'the Muslim community' condemn the actions of Islamic extremist groups.

Road.cc isn't promoting or condoning their activity - only reporting it. And it's quite possible to do that in a way that understands, and perhaps even sympathises with, their motivations, without necessarily endorsing the means.

Silly analogy.

Nobody has asked road.cc to condemn anything.

The question is why is road.cc publicising this group?

Does this story have anything directly to do with cycling?

Rich_cb wrote:

Nobody has asked road.cc to condemn anything.

Troon literally did just that.

Rich_cb wrote:

The question is why is road.cc publicising this group? Does this story have anything directly to do with cycling?

They're not 'publicising' them - they're reporting a thing that happened within their area of interest. It is related to cycling, because the aims of the group are to change our choices off transport mode, including advocating for more cycling as part of that.

"Distance themselves" ≠ condemn.

There's a tangential link to cycling at best.

As others have said this is just the politics of envy with a wafer thin veneer of environmentalism.