Tyre Extinguishers strike again, targeting SUVs in wealthy London areas

chrisonatrike wrote:

Steady on!  If you woke up one morning, had to grab all your paperwork for the mid-morning lycrist conspiracy meeting, get the squirrels ready to go, persuade your aged parents not to dodder down the road on their own (dangerous with the bikes out there) but wait for you to get back to run them to their appointments, rushed out the door late ... and then found your tyres flat I'm sure it would be a moment.

That's why we have N+1 bikes though

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's why we have N+1 bikes though

Well, technically we have N bikes, that being the number one currently owns, whereas N+1 is the ideal number. 

mark1a wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's why we have N+1 bikes though

Well, technically we have N bikes, that being the number one currently owns, whereas N+1 is the ideal number. 

For large values of N, the ratio approaches one, so there's that

Chris Hayes wrote:

It'd be interesting to see what type of wheeled vehicles poses the greatest danger to cyclists in London, which seems to be the main target area of Tyre Extinguishers.  

I can't speak for London but of all the Police reports i've made on my commute in Birmingham over the last couple of years nearly half have been small cars from the Volkswagen Audi Group and Mercedes Sprinter vans/chassis cabs. The only two times SUV's have nearly hit me the drivers stopped just in time, looked shaken and couldn't apologise enough so I just talked to them politely and didn't report them.

I'm not defending SUV drivers but in my opionion a dangerous driver makes whatever vehicle they are in dangerous to vulnerable road users. I'd rather a safe SUV than a dangerous mini, my 'closest' close pass was an untaxed and uninsured Nissan Micra at (I estimated) over 80mph in a 40mph dual carriageway between me and another car in the right lane.

Putting their enviromental aims to one side for a moment, if 'Tyre Extinguishers' really want to make cycling safer then let down every tyre on every vehicle with four tyres or more or just campaign for better public transport, 20mph speed limits and more driver training/education.

Have to say, whether its familiarity with the roads, the cycling infrastructure, or static traffic at times, London feels a reasonably safe place to cycle.  I've had two accidents in 25 years - one on the cycle path in Hyde Park (car park entrance, I thought I had right of way and so did the BMW driver...I think the equation is 'mass is right' and then a nasty one last year which I'm only just recovering from which involved coming off my Brompton and hitting my hip on the kerbedge (resulting in the loss of lots of synovial fluid). No cars involved - just shitty road conditions.

Birmingham on the other hand sounds like a nightmare....though dual carriageways are a risk for cyclists anywhere.  Have to say, I cycle quite a bit through Sheffield too towards the Peak District and find faster moving traffic far more alarming. 

If we stopped all fossil fuel extraction today who would suffer the most?

The poorest and most vulnerable would die in their droves as heating and electricity became extortionately expensive.

Whether we like it or not, as a society we are dependent on fossil fuels and will be for some time to come.

Vandalising property and endangering people is not the way to persuade society to change tack.

Rich_cb wrote:

If we stopped all fossil fuel extraction today who would suffer the most? The poorest and most vulnerable would die in their droves as heating and electricity became extortionately expensive. Whether we like it or not, as a society we are dependent on fossil fuels and will be for some time to come. Vandalising property and endangering people is not the way to persuade society to change tack.

If not today, then when exactly?

As a society, we are not moving away from fossil fuels and are continuing their exploitation and use - this will inevitably stop at some point. We've had decades to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels and yet oil companies continue to reap huge profits.

The rich and powerful are always fond of holding up hordes of poor and disadvantaged people in front of them to act as a protective barrier, but then they employ hordes of accountants so that they don't even have to pay a reasonable amount of tax.

With the mess that the world is now in, it's inevitable that there will be a big upheaval and likely that lots of people will die, but we need to start dealing with that NOW rather than using it as yet another excuse to continue putting money into the pockets of oil barons.

(I find your pearl-clutching about "damage" to private property quite risible and I don't buy your "endangering people" argument)

hawkinspeter wrote:

If not today, then when exactly?

 

Since we live in a democracy it will be when a majority of the electorate vote for a party that is prepared to do something, damaging people's property might end up causing them to vote for the "party of law and order" yet again!

The majority of people DID vote for parties that were prepared to do something. The Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote.

Yes, there are problems with first past the post but last time we were offered a chance to change it the majority of those who bothered to vote decided to keep it so what are we going to do?

Backladder wrote:

Yes, there are problems with first past the post but last time we were offered a chance to change it the majority of those who bothered to vote decided to keep it so what are we going to do?

What we were offered was neither fish nor fowl, a barely perciptible improvement on first past the post, which explains why no-one voted for it, because everyone knows we need a radical change.

We were offered a huge improvement on FPTP.

We declined.

Consider how many extra people might vote Green if they knew they'd also get a second vote if the Greens didn't win.

FWIW I voted in favour of the change.

I too voted for the change, if more people had done so we might have avoided the last 7 years of Tory government, and then where would we be!

It's hard to try and predict how the alternative vote would have changed the ensuing elections.

I think we'd have seen the 'Red Wall' collapse much sooner and the Greens establish themselves in many more cities. UKIP would likely have won some parliamentary seats along the way too.

Do you think we would even have voted on Brexit let alone done it?

I think we'd still have had a referendum. UKIP, Conservatives, Lib Dems and Greens were all in favour of a referendum.

There would have been more UKIP MPs post 2015 so as a consequence we may not have voted to Leave.

Backladder wrote:

Since we live in a democracy it will be when a majority of the electorate vote for a party that is prepared to do something, damaging people's property might end up causing them to vote for the "party of law and order" yet again!

Who exactly is the party of law and order? Would it be the one that parties and breaks the law?

Our democracy is clearly broken when most people seem to be unduly influenced by FarceBook and Muroch's media. It's almost as if the richest and most powerful people are deliberately entrenching their position and screwing the rest of us over.

Yes, the Party party always style themselves as the party of law and order, where have you been?

I don't disagree that our democracy is broken but I don't have any good solutions, do you?

Backladder wrote:

Yes, the Party party always style themselves as the party of law and order, where have you been?

I don't disagree that our democracy is broken but I don't have any good solutions, do you?

EAT THE RICH!

I see what you're trying to do, you want to kill me with all that extra cholesterol!

When we have effective alternatives in place.

Within 5 years we'll likely have enough low carbon sources of electricity to meet current demand as long as the wind and sun are favourable.

When they are not we will still be reliant on fossil fuels.

If we stopped extracting fossil fuels today our society simply would not survive.

Every aspect of our society intrinsically relies on fossil fuels.

The task of weaning our society off that dependence will take decades.

Ideologues like 'Just Stop Oil' don't seem to grasp the extent of our dependence on it.

If you look at the 'how to' section of the Tyre Extinguishers website you'll see they favour a method that slowly deflates the tyres, this makes it perfectly possible that someone could get in their car and drive off without realising that it was slowly becoming unsafe to drive. This would put the driver and also, ironically, vulnerable road users nearby in danger.

Rich_cb wrote:

When we have effective alternatives in place. Within 5 years we'll likely have enough low carbon sources of electricity to meet current demand as long as the wind and sun are favourable. When they are not we will still be reliant on fossil fuels. If we stopped extracting fossil fuels today our society simply would not survive. Every aspect of our society intrinsically relies on fossil fuels. The task of weaning our society off that dependence will take decades. Ideologues like 'Just Stop Oil' don't seem to grasp the extent of our dependence on it. If you look at the 'how to' section of the Tyre Extinguishers website you'll see they favour a method that slowly deflates the tyres, this makes it perfectly possible that someone could get in their car and drive off without realising that it was slowly becoming unsafe to drive. This would put the driver and also, ironically, vulnerable road users nearby in danger.

So are you stating that in 5 years time we can stop extracting fossil fuels? That would be a better target than what we currently have, so I'd accept that as a compromise.

I don't see that a slowly deflating tyre would cause a vehicle to become unsafe unless the owner deliberately ignored the warning letter stuck to their windscreen and then drove off without performing any safety checks. Deliberately deflating tyres causes less problems than a broken bottle left in the road.

No, I don't think we'll ever be able to stop extracting fossil fuels entirely.

The 5 years was just an attempt to give some perspective.

It will take 5 years to even reach the point when we can go 24 hours without using fossil fuels for electricity.

To reach the point where we can do that indefinitely is multiple decades away.

You're assuming a leaflet on the window is a perfect warning mechanism. It obviously isn't. There are myriad ways such a warning could fail.

A slowly deflating tyre may not be noticeable at the start of the journey but several hours later may reach the point of causing danger.

Rich_cb wrote:

No, I don't think we'll ever be able to stop extracting fossil fuels entirely. The 5 years was just an attempt to give some perspective. It will take 5 years to even reach the point when we can go 24 hours without using fossil fuels for electricity. To reach the point where we can do that indefinitely is multiple decades away. You're assuming a leaflet on the window is a perfect warning mechanism. It obviously isn't. There are myriad ways such a warning could fail. A slowly deflating tyre may not be noticeable at the start of the journey but several hours later may reach the point of causing danger.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/139-to-100renewables-by-2050-clean-energy/#!

If we actually commit to dealing with the issues, then I'm sure we could bring about a substantial change, but even though an emergency has been declared, we're still pussy-footing around whether to inconvenience some people or not (c.f. LTNs).

I still don't think that a deflating tyre is that much of a safety issue as it seems unlikely that the tyre would be deflating slowly enough to not be spotted the following morning and yet be deflating fast enough to cause problems on the journey. I doubt that anyone has been injured by these actions, but feel free to go looking for the figures if they are available.

I get that an under-inflated tyre can cause handling problems, but a note on the windscreen seems a good enough warning, considering that deflating tyres (through wear and tear) is a common enough issue.

I think that paper is championing boradly the same approach that I am. A pragmatic transition to net zero over the next three decades. That's not what 'Just Stop Oil' et al are proposing.

You're assuming the driver leaves several hours after the deflation has begun.

If they leave shortly afterwards and the, decidedly imperfect, warning system fails then both they and other road users will be placed in danger.

I just don't think that's an acceptable risk given the complete lack of benefit.

I'm sure that all vulnerable road users will be delighted to have an increase in the number of angry SUV owners, late for their journey because they have just had to pump up their tyres, sharing our overcrowded roads!

Rich_cb wrote:

If we stopped extracting fossil fuels today our society simply would not survive.

But why do we need to be exploiting new sources of fossil fuels? new oil wells, new coal mines, fracking etc. This is not about gradually phasing out, but ever increasing emissions.

(Nothing to do with bikes again). Agreed.  I think as usual Rich_cb is right, for a given value of "right".  Our "society" in one sense (e.g. like an archaeological "culture") is predicated on ever increasing growth.  Anything which limits that would mean a change.  (Which might cause house prices to fall!) So absent this continual expansion it's correct that "our society" wouldn't "survive".

Now the consequences.  Luckily we have data on lots of historical examples of societal transition / "collapse".  Some of these have indeed been "world ending" events for the populations.  The usual fates for systems above the biological "carrying capacity" - famine, disease and normally war / anarchy.  However in many (most?) cases something less dramatic occurs.  The archaeological "culture" disappears but the people remain.  Sometimes this is more gradual (e.g. a culture is replaced by similar cultures), sometimes we get "dark ages" where people keep living there but at a much less "sophisticated" cultural level.

The good news for us is that we have incomparable resources (compared to former times) in terms of knowledge and "design".  Even just knowing that something is possible is a great help to creating it.  Plus there is more widespread cooperation between people (both within regions and globally) and many people have had some generations of relative stability.  So we have a good chance of forming a collaborative "conspiracy" to change things / "Mad Max" outcomes less likely.

The bad news is that due to our specialisation and technological level our systems are not very resilient.  It's OK if one country has an issue but if a whole region does not so much.  You can't build a very good bike with iron-age technology but you could probably repair one.  Not so a mobile phone.  Because of our huge energy / resource usage / populations far above "carrying capacity" our "culture" is extremely unstable.  Also due to our huge inequalities there are plenty of people with a grudge or used to holding on to power by extremely repressive actions.

chrisonatrike wrote:

You can't build a very good bike with iron-age technology but you could probably repair one.  Not so a mobile phone.

But how can I repair my bike if I don't have a phone to Google how to do it?