- 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 target SUVs on home turf of the ‘Chelsea Tractor’
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.
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
- hawkinspeter 4 hours 41 min ago
Interesting theory - how many points does it take for them to drive carefully?
- eburtthebike 5 hours 4 min ago
At the end of the consultation in May 2025, a decision will be taken.........
- Grahamd 5 hours 29 min ago
The absurdity of it deepens when you realise that those points were acquired by the age of 26.
- David9694 7 hours 3 min ago
BAM!
- IanGlasgow 7 hours 39 min ago
"Polartec Power Shield RPM fabric – which has a 10,000mm hydro head to keep wet weather out, and an industry-leading breathability spec of 30,000g...
- mdavidford 8 hours 42 min ago
Oxfordshire councils are quite capable of letting you down too!...
- levestane 8 hours 56 min ago
'each spoke' (single) and 'leaf spring' (made of many leaves) seems contradictory.
- PenLaw 9 hours 48 min ago
I guess Morrissey could claim it.
- wtjs 10 hours 14 min ago
I do see a lot of delivery riders (on illegal e-motorbikes) with their faces covered...
- David9694 10 hours 54 min ago
Stuff like this seems more relevant than ever after the Trump victory. sorry not a funny
Add new comment
123 comments
Strap him to... the heated car seat!
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 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-ca...
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 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 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 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 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.
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 4x4 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 4x4 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 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 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.
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 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?
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?
Frugal compared to the 5 litre v8...
My 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 anyone needs a 4x4 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, 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 a reason why a 4x4 is ok, especially when you acknowledge that TEC is the correct way to look at it.
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.
You missed out three times more likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision than a standard saloon.
Why would that be part of anyone's selection criteria? I don't understand.
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 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 under water or burning by the time you've finished hedging and waffling and defending the indefensible.
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 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 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 likely roll over in a collision, causing more serious injuries, due to their high center of gravity and tendency to mount the other vehicle.
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 4x4 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-rej...
I say again. Its envy being (ironically) greenwashed.
Pages