- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Deflated SUV in Primrose Hill via Tyre ExtinguishersTyre Extinguishers strike again, targeting SUVs in wealthy London areas
Tyre Extinguishers, the activist group that targets SUVs due to the damage the vehicles cause to the environment as well as the risk they pose to vulnerable road users including cyclists struck again in London last night, letting the air out of the tyres of 120 vehicles and leaving behind leaflets explaining to the owners why they had taken the action.
The direct action group, one of whose members we interviewed in the latest edition of the road.cc Podcast, undertook its latest direct action intervention in several affluent areas of the capital – namely Hampstead, Primrose Hill, Paddington and Kensington.
The group is calling for “bans on SUVs in urban areas, pollution levies to tax SUVs out of existence, and massive investment in free, comprehensive public transport. But until politicians make this a reality, Tyre Extinguishers’ action will continue,” they add.
According to Department for Transport figures, some 74 per cent of SUVs are registered to owners with addresses in cities, and affluent boroughs in the capital account for six in 10 sales of such vehicles.
A spokesperson for Tyre Extinguishers said: “We are facing the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. The climate crisis is an existential emergency.
“To safeguard a habitable world, we need to move off of fossil fuels as fast as possible. As the Just Stop Oil campaign has exposed, the first step is to stop all new fossil fuel licenses. This is a basic, common sense policy for meaningful climate action.
“This action was taken because removing SUVs from urban areas is a necessary part of reducing unnecessary fossil fuel demand, supporting the energy transition, and securing a habitable world.
“Three quarters of these 'off-road' vehicles are purchased by people living in towns or cities. We cannot allow SUVs to continue the incineration of our planet. Owning an SUV is dangerous. It can no longer be accepted.
“Just Stop Oil, Just Stop SUVs,” they added.
Besides London, the movement – which similar to Critical Mass has no formal organisational structure and has supporters worldwide – has previously targeted SUVs in UK cities including Brighton & Hove and Edinburgh, and further afield in places including Zurich in Switzerland and Colorado in the US, and has also received requests for its leaflets to be translated into languages including French and Italian.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 6 hours 51 min ago
To be fair the Germans didn't give everyone much notice they were done with the war in November. Could have saved everyone tooling up for the Big...
- Blackthorne 7 hours 32 min ago
I disagree, the lucky few who get to wear one of these will certainly produce more mass.
- Dnnnnnn 8 hours 7 min ago
That wasn't what my original post was about - it was about the NHS as it is now. If you're going to be run over by an ambulance tomorrow, there are...
- imajez 8 hours 31 min ago
I prefer the not haveing to faff with brakes in first place, which is the typical reality for hydraulic systems.
- Backladder 11 hours 35 min ago
I'm sure the met are merely waiting for it to build up to a critical mass and then they'll swoop in and confiscate and crush them all then there...
- qwerty360 13 hours 27 min ago
Reality - I expect most first year lectures have more than 80 students at them; So 80 bicycle spaces is a rounding error on potential demand....
- whosatthewheel 15 hours 6 min ago
Especially that it is a traffic light controlled junction so he must have been completely blinded not to see the red on his left hand side and a...
- biking59boomer 15 hours 37 min ago
Send the details to UK network rail and Transport for Wales as well!
- KDee 16 hours 26 min ago
So that Pulsium from Lapierre has a 415mm wheelbase? I assume it's on 20 inch wheels then!
- ktache 17 hours 22 min ago
It's been one hell of a ride Cav, thanks for letting us share some of it. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/nov/09/mark-cavendish-final-race-...
Add new comment
236 comments
Can we just be clear that although the city SUV is a super poingent case in point, the same arguments of vanity, insecurity, bullying, etc apply equally to them in rural areas.
It might be better to say that by targeting SUVs, the 'Tyre Extinguishers' leave themselves open to being accused by Daily Fail readers and Jeremy Clarkson fans of envy of the rich. That's a nice and simple knee jerk reaction, doesn't take any thinking about: an important factor in some people's 'politics'.
And another thing...can't help thinking it's a bit childish, just letting tyres down as a protest. It's likely just to infuriate the owners and entrench them even deeper in their climate change denial (if that is their stance, of course they might be just ignorant), and make them ever more anti climate change protests. Maybe make them determined to drive their gas guzzlers even more, just to say 'up yours' to the crusties (Boris's term, not mine).
How was the Australia trip Burt?
Interesting. In five days in Adelaide, I saw maybe ten commuting cyclists, and cycle facilities were, to say the least, basic.
Glad it was interesting.
Wouldn't want you to travel nearly 10,000 miles (by plane?) for something dull.
The point of the journey wasn't to examine the cycling situation in Australia, it was to meet the daughter I didn't know I had. I haven't flown anywhere for ten years, but this was exceptional.
I hope the meeting went well.
If you can justify an incredibly environmentally damaging trip because of your personal circumstances then it seems a bit hypocritical to deny that option to SUV owners.
I didn't choose the plane and there is no other realistic option for getting there; SUV drivers choose to have a vehicle which is much more polluting than other options, and use it for less than necessary trips. You might consider that flying to see my only offspring at the age of 70 hypocritical, and I respect your opinion, even if I don't share it.
A friend of mine emigrated to Brisbane several years ago, and sometime afterwards, his dad (was somewhere around 80, I believe) went to visit him, but chose to go via ship - took him around 3 months or so. I think he just liked the idea of taking his time and enjoying the journey.
I think an individual's use of a plane is way down the list of problems, especially when you consider that planes make completely empty trips just to keep their airport passes. (I have to say that as I've visited Brisbane a few times).
Also, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/12/greenhouse-gas-emissions-must-peak-within-4-years-says-leaked-un-report:
Time to eat the rich
I think emissions from flights are a big problem.
Undoubtedly - the fuel isn't even taxed!
What I was getting at is that there's no point complaining at Burt taking an unusual flight, but we need to go after the bigger issues first.
Meanwhile, Bristol Airport expansion plans were given the go-ahead
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-60233982
I think Burt must have taken a private plane is the only insinuation I can see being made by Rich_CB. If he hadn't have taken that flight, the plane wouldn't have flown.
You can make the same comment about every commercial flight on the planet.
Either people taking commercial flights are contributing to climate change or they're not?
Which is it?
The wealthiest top 10% globally includes pretty much the entire population of the UK.
It's not the fact that you made the choice to fly that is hypocritical.
I'd likely have made the exact same choice given your circumstances.
It's the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that other people's choices may also be driven by their personal circumstances.
Since I have never refused to acknowledge that, I'm more than slightly baffled by your assertion; unless you're a bogan.
Yet you declared SUV drivers 'arrogant and stupid' in this very thread?
Is there not a single set of circumstances in which someone may need such a vehicle?
Sorry, I've given up pointless arguing with holier-than-thou sanctimonious preachers for lent, or some other religious festival.
Strange that your newfound abstinence coincided exactly with being proven wrong.
Enjoy your religious festival Burt.
Don't you think you're taking this a bit far?
I'm afraid he's rather famous for taking things too far.
You need to make your mind up.
Either you recognise there is a climate problem, and you start to change your habits (and perhaps encourage other people to do the same); or you don't recognise there's a problem, in which case you should wind your neck in and stop criticising other people.
I do recognise there is a problem.
I've adjusted my life accordingly.
I also recognise that, whether we like it or not, fossil fuels are vital to our transition to a net zero society.
Well thank you for being proactive / taking a view on the future.
Our predicament is inherently not "fair". So the richest / those using the most energy / resources and in general emitting the most (don't forget electricity is still mostly "emit elsewhere") will in many cases see the least direct change. (I think anyone in the UK earning more than the minimum wage is effectively in the global "richest" bracket and you don't have to earn much more to be in the elite). And it'll be the rich who consume the most "transitioning". (Do you have minerals we need for our batteries / e-vehicles? Better supply them to us and quick!)
The feedback loop is extended in time too. We might be able to die very cosily without needing to change much.
Likely we in the UK will see indirect change sooner e.g. prices / more migration. Probably that is hard to pull out from all the other events and situations driving change however.
I don't understand why Australians are so blasé about climate change when it seems likely that Australia will become even more inhospitable. If the wet-bulb temperature exceeds 31°C for long periods then it'll only be possible for humans to live in climate controlled conditions although Australia doesn't tend to have high humidity, so maybe they won't be the first casualties.
Almost every day I was there, reports were coming in about the floods in NSW, which killed people, destroyed homes and infrastructure, and most commentators said was at least partly due to climate change.
Pages