SUV Tyres Deflated on Burbage Road

[tomszekeres]

Looks like it was a coordinated action across Dulwich, Kensington, Primrose Hill & Marylebone

Personally, think targeting individuals like this is wrong - and counterproductive.

These are dangerous vehicles that need to disappear from our roads, but legally, not through criminal damage.

They're awful for GHG and air pollution, twice as likely to kill children, and 11% more likely to kill their owners (who often buy them because they think they're safer).

But we need better regulation, not random, vigilante punishment. We're surely better than that.

From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/04/climate-activists-deflate-suv-tyres-in-wealthy-london-neighbourhoods:

"The Dulwich Society, a community representing the interests of local people in the leafy suburb of Dulwich, condemned the action. A spokesperson said: ?Several cars were vandalised in Dulwich last night with tyres deflated and this poster left on windscreens. We are environmentally friendly but this is not who we are as a community.?

However, the activists said the tyres were let down without damage, and that the action was necessary to educate the vehicle owners about the fossil fuels emitted by the large cars.

They pointed out that petrol and diesel SUVs produce 25% more CO2 on average than a medium-sized car and are far more deadly. SUVs are significantly more likely to kill pedestrians in crashes and those driving them are 11% more likely to die in a crash than people in normal cars.

A spokesperson for Last Gasp said: ?We disarmed these SUVs because they are a growing and needless part of the system that is killing us. Nobody needs a planet-wrecking SUV. To drive an SUV in an urban area with good public transport is a luxury ? and it?s a luxury that has terrifying consequences for our planet. SUVs poison our children?s lungs, cause so many deaths on the road, and spew out carbon dioxide into a climate on the brink of collapse. If you are worried about getting your tyres deflated, our advice is: don?t own an SUV. We do not intend to stop, and many more will follow us.

?We wish we had other effective means to defend ourselves, but luxury emissions must stop now. Spend one afternoon reading the science and it is clear ? people must take action now to defend life itself.?"

[Waseley]

Well it may be wrong to target individuals but hell it's got publicity

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

While I don't agree with interfering with blah blah blah, it is totally absurd that people are driving around South London in Range Rovers and Jeeps.

[Spartacus]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While I don't agree with interfering with blah

> blah blah, it is totally absurd that people are

> driving around South London in Range Rovers and

> Jeeps.

You make it sound as if the whole of South East London drives around in Range Rovers and Jeeps

I can count the toes on one foot the number of Range Rovers and Jeeps I've seen around here in the last year..

Then again I suspect in your head everyone drives a yellow Range Rover aka layer cake style

[Penguin68]

And it is worth reminding people that 'SUVs' are a type of vehicle based on their overall design - they sit taller than standard saloons (which is very handy if you are elderly, for getting in and out of) - but they come now in many sizes. The driving position gives better visibility (particularly when you are driving amidst e.g. higher sided vans) which is a safety feature, and modern smaller petrol SUVs are decidedly less polluting than many older and particularly diesel saloons. And Hummer is launching this year an all electric (huge) SUV! Which clearly operationally has a very low pollution contribution (even where its manufacture may not - but that isn't relevant to use around locales).

It would make more sense to attack large, diesel, vans than SUVs; but then there is much less envy and class hatred directed at van drivers - so that's all right then.

[Waseley]

There is a local street that used to be full of large SUVs. I used to think that drug dealers or minor footballers lived there. In the last year or so they have switched to Tesslas. Another indulgence for most. The majority of London drivers will do low mileage, short urban journeys, not requiring a large diesel, or even a large electric vehicle. For many there is sense to switching to a car club. I see a new company Hiya, in the area as well as Zip car. It's a difficult transition moving from the convenience of having a vehicle outside to car club. More leadership from Westminster is needed

[northdulmum]

I own a 2008 nissan qashqai, genuinely had no idea it was considered an SUV or large car. I find it quite a practical size. Anyway, my car was targeted. It is old and tired so I guess due an upgrade but seems wasteful ditching it and getting a new car in lease arrangement set up.

Edit to say I also didn?t think it had high emissions and Qualifies under ulez. Seriously confusing. Anyway.

[Penguin68]

'SUV' is a style, like saloon, or estate, or people carrier. It refers to a car which which is relatively tall (but less so than most vans) and which is built to 'look' butch. There are big SUVs - which are often used in farms, or for 'country pursuits' and some of them are 'luxury' (but no more polluting for that). Some big SUV capabilities are probably unnecessary for purely urban driving (though they may not be used just for that) although I do recall that in the very rare occasions when we have had snow and ice in ED that it is the SUVs (and not even the buses) that were able to manage the hill on Underhill by the cemetery. SUVs are the target of class hatred (of their owners). A modern petrol SUV is, as I have said above, actually unlikely to be a significant contributor to urban air pollution (compared, for instance, to the large diesel vans we see constantly on the move, even ULEZ compliant) and many in ED are not used on a daily basis, or for long (in time terms) drives in local streets.

The SUV style is now quite popular (for many relatively small cars - such as the Qashqai mentioned above) and to target 'SUVs' is as sensible as targeting all 'saloons' when what you hate are Rolls's, and big Beamers and Mercs (and of course, those with the temerity to own them!)

[northdulmum]

I?d struggle to sell my car for >?1k

It?s a very basic, run-around car

So they can?t be targeting me because of an anti-wealth thing surely?

[mrwb]

The UK further turning in to lawless hellhole. No better than Catalytic converter theives. No excuse to break the law and damage people's property. Regardless of the cause, its a slippery slope to hell. For what cause is criminal damage acceptable and which not?

The police probably won't do anything of course for any kind of crime of that nature. Hopefully whoever is responsible is caught and faces the full consequences of the law. Won't be holding my breath though.

[Spartacus]

And they say there isn't a war on motorists ...

This behaviour indicates that for some there is....

[Waseley]

All a bit knee jerk and over-reaction. I'm sorry you've had your tyres let down. In terms of criminal damage, it isn't, but an inconvenience. Direct action has a long history, the Ludittes didn't simply wee on the looms. Sorry couldn't think of an analogy to letting tyres down. Think back to 2000 when many, not me, supported blockading of fuel terminals

[ab29]

Whoever does it is in fact a criminal and should be punished. Not to mention that if the tyers have to be replaced and the old ones thrown away it simply producing unnecessary rubbish. Let's see what the pro LTN commando has to say when planters and bollards currently blocking some roads are removed or damaged by someone.

[Spartacus]

Waseley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Direct action has a long history, the Ludittes

> didn't simply wee on the looms. Sorry couldn't

> think of an analogy to letting tyres down.

Forgive me but didn't the ludittes eventually lose their fight ?

Let's hope it's the same with the anti car lobby

[Rockets]

My, to see some people coming on here to somehow justify people vandalising cars is beyond belief. The "yeah but" community is seemingly strong in the pro-LTN community.

At least Cllr Newens had the commonsense to point out that what these people are doing is incredibly dangerous as it can degrade the structural integrity of the tyre.

But for some it seems completely justifiable to "make a point". I think it is time some people took a look in the mirror and decide whether this really is what we think people should be doing to make a point. It's idiotic and no-one should be condoning it.

[Waseley]

Not really sure how you saw my posts as supporting this action. Simply pointing out that compared to smashing looms it was very low level. And those of you up in arms how many supported the 2000 fuel protests?

Mr/Mrs Rockets are Southwark pulling the strings 🙂

[Rockets]

"Yeah, but...direct action blah blah blah"...the usual defence from the usual suspects...

It's time a few people started putting commonsense ahead of personal ideaology and recalibrated their right and wrong compass.

[jazzer]

Was on Underhill Road earlier today waiting for a P13, there's loads and loads of SUV type vehicles in the area or cutting through the area. Not saying it's right or wrong to let tyres down, but what I will say, perhaps Mayor Khan can make a proclamation to ban SUV type vehicles in London, because to be honest they are unnecessary in an urban environment, a hazard to pedestrians and generally are over sized motors.

[alice]

I heard something like 75% of SUVs are sold to people living in urban areas. So yes I agree.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While I don't agree with interfering with blah

> blah blah, it is totally absurd that people are

> driving around South London in Range Rovers and

> Jeeps.

Infantile horse s**t. Do you apply the same 'logic' to mountain bikes? (no mountains) ..sports cars/bikes? It's such flaccid nonsense.

[alice]

Mountain bikes take up the same space as all bikes. SUVs do not.

[legalalien]

Presumably the size of SUVs is only an issue if they are overused (for short journeys) and under occupied. One of the big criticisms of local traffic has been that there is only eg one person in a car.

If you want people to carpool for, say, the school run, for people coming in to the area to private schools (or, close to my heart, to get children and their equipment to sports fixtures in far flung places inaccesssible by public transport) then they?d need bigger vehicles? Otherwise you?d get more smaller vehicles which is worse?

I don?t think it?s always as simple as ?big vehicle equals bad?, although sometimes it doubtless is. But the tyre attackers have no way of knowing.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Waseley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In terms of

> criminal damage, it isn't,

It is, actually.

[Waseley]

It's interference with a vehicle not damage. Piston Heads has a whole thread on the subject. But more importantly is Mr/Mrs Rockets making their sweeping statements against me, you or one they don't agree with

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Waseley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's interference with a vehicle not damage.

It isn't, actually.

It's not interference with a vehicle because none of the offences in s9(2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 were intended. Interference is "tried to nick the car, tried to hotwire it, failed in nicking, succeeded in interfering".

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/47/section/9?view=plain

It's criminal damage: "Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established - R v Whiteley [1991] 93 Crim. App. R. 25."

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage