- 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
- Wheelywheelygood 16 min 10 sec ago
Nothing to do with water it's that your not keeping up your numbers of people in wheelchairs hit by bikes while on the pavement, try going around...
- chrisonabike 18 min 30 sec ago
You've been quoted in the article as being concerned "about the safety of cyclist and vehicles”....
- S.E. 5 hours 52 sec ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 5 hours 25 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 4 hours 32 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 5 hours 36 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 6 hours 37 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 7 hours 2 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
- chrisonabike 7 hours 16 min ago
Replace them all with Bromptons and they'd take up zero space within days or even hours, as they are all relocated elsewhere. To eBay or possibly...
- Andrewbanshee 7 hours 47 min ago
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don't seem to have problems...
Add new comment
236 comments
I'm not a fan of SUVs and can't for the life of me understand why people choose to drive them in cities, but this is just childish vandalism that does nothing to win hearts and minds. It reeks of jealousy rather than activism.
My hot take is that VED should be based on a car's weight, energy efficiency and NO2 emmissions. Those are the only things that really matter when it comes to pollution, threat to other road users and wear & tear on the road network.
There's too much focus on SUVs to my mind, that smacks of jealousy of a kind. The reality is a PHEV based hybrid is going to be better in terms of emissions than a small hatchback with an ICE engine only.
Honestly though I think for the majority of cases driving in London full stop makes no sense. Public transport is served well and reasonably priced in the city, and realistically cycling is quicker in most cases.
While tax is going to need an overhaul the reality is most of not all SUV will be at a price point to have to pay the additional tax for five years.
End of the day though this is just vandalism that's never going to win people over.
Isnt it more that SUVs are highly visible example of a sort of vehicle which just shouldn't be in a cramped urban area? They are far too big and wide for a typical British residential street.
Convenient how you erased the part where I said driving in London full stop makes no sense. The car in the photo looks like a Porsche Macan which isn't actually much bigger than a golf, so yeah totally not about some kind of jealousy. Possibly idiocy from the same ilk that blocked a cooking oil tanker though!
Siding with vigilantes isn't a good look for the cycling community, but expeceted here on road.cc TBH.
Vigilantes now, I thought you were going to use the correct terms.
*YAWN*
I agree with you on driving in London making no sense (based on the handful of times I've been there).
But I disagreed with you on people only hating SUVs because of jealousy, because I thought that was a stupid comment
M'kay?
-
Did we think that the "I'm no gynaecologist, but..." comment was a bit much?
I saw that and thought it was out-of-place considering Brooksby's comment was quite polite. Anyhow, Adam Sutton has (rightly) decided to withdraw it.
(I've always thought that Brooksby seemed like a nice guy)
I wondered what they'd said. Been out, and came back to see a reply which just said "-"... Can I presume that they were being a bit rude?
You could say that although one word was left unfinished, so maybe I was reading too much into it. It appears as though Adam didn't intend it for you, but it was "highly applicable to a few here" which has a mysterious air about it.
Adam gets pretty cross about most people on here on the basis that they tend to favour bicycling over motoring, and has done since he first appeared not so long ago. It does make one wonder quite why he bothers, I like a vigorous debate but I don't go on Petrolheads and start having a go at them for preferring cars, it would feel a bit pointless.
Oh you do go on... oh sorry I didn't read to the end of that sentence.
I reckon it's highly applicable to a few here. I'd replied to the wrong comment, so I'll let you be the judge.
SUV owner, by any chance?
So are people campaigning for better road safety or gun control are somehow 'jealous' because they haven't killed anyone themselves?
Are those who want fairer taxes and redistribution of extreme wealth secretly wishing they were billionaires and able to exploit tax loopholes?
Is it? I thought this was about SUVs.
Perhaps you are just pretending there isn't really a massive problem here. Nevertheless, replacing petrol/diesel cars with hybrid or e-cars may only reduce (but not eliminate) one part of a multi-part problem.
How do you know that?
People have said the same about campaigns over the centuries, "nah, you won't win any friends that way". Don't make a fuss, just protest more quietly, and go somewhere else to do it.
Yawn, a tiresome ad hominem response. Change the record.
That is some epic reaching going on there. So, saying there's too much focus on SUVs somehow I am now against gun control and fair tax campainging LMAO! Oooookay.
I have worked in London for 20 years, the only time I drive is if as is sometimes the case, I have to work out of hours when public transport isn't running. Like I say, I would sooner see a thought through push to get people out of cars in built up areas like London who really shouldn't be, than idiotic stunts like this.
There are multiple issues here, and a major one is pollution. Cycle into London on a Sunday and then a weekday and you see and feel the difference. Yes the big aim should be to reduce the number of cars, but better to have a vehicle with no emissions out of the tailpipe.
How do you know that?
People have said the same about campaigns over the centuries, "nah, you won't win any friends that way". Don't make a fuss, just protest more quietly, and go somewhere else to do it.
[/quote]
Righto, vandilism of peoples property is the way forward. I got you. This is about as stupid as the morons that stopped an oil tanker full of cooking oil.
Can't think of many places in London that aren't close to a nightbus route, or you could always cycle? (Worked in London thirty-five years and counting, never driven apart from a brief 18-month flirtation with motorcycles)
Err, working in London does not necessarily equate to living in London. Back in the real world large parts of the country, even areas just outside of that there London have epically bad public transport. Something people seem ignorant to, probably because like you they seem to live in a fantasy world where everyone has access to the tube and night buses. I can't even get to my parents 10 miles away after work by bus, they don't run past about 19:00.
If I'm working at 3am to carry out a critical piece of work I'm going to take the quickest and simplest option, and at that time driving is the answer. Door to door it's about an hour. Cycling door to door is 30 miles and would take a lot longer.
I'm all for encouraging active travel, reducing car use etc, but people need to wake up to the fact that transport links for many are so infrequent, unreliable and expensive that it just isn't viable. Sorting that is key, as much as people seem to think cycling is the fix it just isn't going to work for many, where public transport could. If I go back to the office enough to warrant an annual travel card I'm looking at a cost of over £4000 now.
No. Wondering why you reacted with "There's too much focus on SUVs to my mind, that smacks of jealousy of a kind". And you have not answered my question.
No. Read it properly.
I was talking about your inference that people campaigning for change are merely jealous and asking whether you would also accuse people campaigning for other changes (e.g. gun control) to be jealous. Are the Insulate Britain protesters merely jealous of other people's cold houses? Are the people glueing themselves to petrol pumps merely jealous? Are the climate scientists arrested outside the JP Morgan Chase building in LA last month merely jealous?
Did I say that? No.
I'm not arguing in favour of the group's actions but suggesting that it's not merely vandalism.
What kind of meaningful protest would you like to see take place instead? Or should protests not have any real impact?
I hope someone catches them and beats them senseless.
wait til you hear about something happening that is actually serious - it will blow your mind.
But this is damage to property! And actually endangering drivers (and others) because altering handling of cars! I mean - that could even cause the car to crash into a house, or something...
It's not damage to property. It's a flat tyre.
The more you think about it. The more a good idea it becomes. You're actually going to consider this greener concept (while reinflating your tyre). In some cases people may choose to reduce their need for a Chelsea tractor. I love city cycling when I can and London is choc full of tractors!
Draining the petrol would be more pertinent but harder to do and also theft.
The fact that lots of people still display their status via bigger cars is the thing here. (I don't believe the Clarkson "we have to, to protect our children from others in big cars" idea really applies much.) Apparently in some places (I've heard it said of some places in The Netherlands) there's a "reverse" of this in that cycling in the centre of cities is a demonstration that you can afford to live close to work and thus of your higher wealth / status.
The above shows we should examine the idea of change from the other perspective. Suppose people do give up the gas guzzlers. What will the wealthy / influential do for transport? How will they display their wealth / status? Because they will. Will this continue to be a vehicle thing? If so how can we work with that rather than simply substituting ICE SUVs for electric SUVs? (That's as much of a plan as the government appears to have. The talk about active travel and even public transport appears to be just that - wishful thinking as they're not funding it). That bit of harm minimisation will retain their danger, their need for space, road damage, tyre and brake particulate emissions (and currently still emit fossil fuels, just elsewhere, directly or in building our nuclear / wind farms etc.), require another resource hunt in the 3rd world / under the oceans for battery materials etc.
How about rigging a pipe from the exhaust so that the driver gets to experience first-hand the toxicity of their actions? Unfortunately, the fumes are so toxic that it would probably be considered murder although it's legal for the driver to force the rest of us to breathe it in.
(NB. just fitting a pipe from the exhaust would miss out on all the significant pollution from the tyres and brakes)
There's an inverse-inverse of this in the UK, in that those who can get to work on a cheap Dutch bike or hybrid must live close to the city centre, but those who spend a lot of time on their bike because they don't live near the city centre tend to have a nice (and probably expensive) road bike.
Their suggested technique even means replacing the valve cap.
That seems like a bit of an overreaction... I'm also pretty sure that common assault and GBH are actually treated more harshly by the courts than "letting someone's tyres down".
Pages