SUV Tyres Deflated on Burbage Road

[Penguin68]

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

That is rubbish. It is true that the 'Chelsea Tractors' of old were (and are) large - but many SUVs, like the Nissan which was attacked mentioned above, have a very similar or identical footprint to what was known as 'family saloons'. And indeed to people carriers. There are, certainly, big cars (as there are very big vans) but all SUVs are not the same. The most popular indeed (obviously, as they are cheaper) are those which may look big and butch (part of their appeal) but which are actually a pretty standard 'car' size. It is the fact that they are functionally hatchbacks, but taller, and not 3 box cars which make them look more imposing. Their height, by the way, as I have already said, gives their drivers a much better road position to identify, and respond to, hazards. They also tend to be more stately (slower) than many other types of cars (reference 'hot hatches') - and thus more safe (at least and in so far as they do not appeal to those who like driving fast).

[redpost]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Mountain bikes take up the same space as all

> bikes. SUVs do not.

>

> That is rubbish. It is true that the 'Chelsea

> Tractors' of old were (and are) large - but many

> SUVs, like the Nissan which was attacked mentioned

> above, have a very similar or identical footprint

> to what was known as 'family saloons'. And indeed

> to people carriers. There are, certainly, big cars

> (as there are very big vans) but all SUVs are not

> the same. The most popular indeed (obviously, as

> they are cheaper) are those which may look big and

> butch (part of their appeal) but which are

> actually a pretty standard 'car' size. It is the

> fact that they are functionally hatchbacks, but

> taller, and not 3 box cars which make them look

> more imposing. Their height, by the way, as I have

> already said, gives their drivers a much better

> road position to identify, and respond to,

> hazards. They also tend to be more stately

> (slower) than many other types of cars (reference

> 'hot hatches') - and thus more safe (at least and

> in so far as they do not appeal to those who like

> driving fast).

Penguin68, please meet my good friend, basic physics:

Range Rover ... 2360kg

Audi Q7 ... 2450kg

Porsche Macan ... 2200kg

Nissan Micra ... 1104kg

Prius ... 1317kg

[Waseley]

Penguin, would you say that large SUVs such as Land Rovers, BMs, mercs, Volvos and the like make good sense for most of their London owners? As for safety it is the nut behind the steering wheel that is the biggest issue. Not sure if SUV drivers in London are any safer but it can be frightening once you get on country roads. The protection that they afford the driver, weight and amount of steel may contribute to a feeling of invisibility. Ultimately it is momentum that us the main protection, the lighter vehicle will generally come off worst.

DKH - you are more aware of the law than me. Perhaps you are better at Googling, or maybe have more first hand experience. Prey tell more! Just teasing, although is it a custodial sentence, deportation or public execution. The old ways were best🙂

[Penguin68]

Nissan qashqai 1475 kg

[Waseley]

Which will come off worse against a two tonne plus X5 which my question was about. Not Peugeot 3008s and the like

[Supercam]

Everybody seems to be getting hung up on the size, mass or height of the vehicle. While that may be why they've been targeted it's certainly a convenient catch all to get across the point, which most on here seem to be missing. The crux of the issue is transport efficiency, or 'insert toxic gas here' per mile produced. Whether co2 or Nox etc. Small cars produce less. Yes a modern big SUV probably produces less than a 10 year old hatchback but it definitely produces more than a hatchback of the same manufacturing year.

This action is raising awareness of this fact and asking what cost does personal convenience truly come with. Could you switch to a more economical car, whether that be newer or smaller?

And yes, before people assume, I am a motorist.

[Penguin68]

And my point, very simply, is that what has been targeted is not just 'a big modern SUV' but also small modern SUVs. So it's about hatred of a type/ style of car. Targeting big diesel vans would be far more effective if what you are on about is pollution and not class hatred.

And, by the way, people may well park-up SUVs in Dulwich without exclusively using them in (our) urban settings. Asking why people should need them in Dulwich is no different from asking why residents should have the temerity to store their skis or scuba gear in Dulwich.

And I'm always amused when they are also accused of 'rarely' using them, just leaving them parked up. So you would prefer to have them being used more?

[Eastdulwich84]

I feel let people drive what they want, damaging other peoples property is a nasty thing to do. When people work hard for something it?s the least they deserve. Do we damage the bigger homes due to energy consumption or those who eat meat? We want a society of freedoms but don?t respect other peoples choices unfortunately. I think the ulez helps against pollution with judgments on c02.

[Rockets]

And I feel many of these attacks are utterly misguided, often the motivation and catalyst for them is a belief in the lazy narrative pushed by some that "the car is the problem" when it is, in fact, all vehicles that are the problem. Granted the case for huge SUV ownership is very limited and they have become a status symbol but that doesn't justify anyone damaging them and putting the occupants and other road users at risk as a result of their blinkered foolishness.

If I remember rightly buses, coaches and taxis were/are responsible for the largest share of NO2 and PM3 output in the capital and if you look at TFL's own figures on vehicle compliance with ULEZ rules cars are not the biggest problem. In fact, according to TFL's own Air Quality in London report from October 2020 TFL buses had 0% vehicles that were non-compliant to ULEZ, only 9% of HGVs and 10.9% of cars were non-compliant.

The issues are when you look at taxis (71%), vans (36%) and non TFL buses and Coaches (23%) that had/have the highest level of non-compliance. Of course, this was pre-ULEZ extension but it really shows how targeting cars may be being motivated not by an understanding of the problem you are actually trying to tackle but something more ideological.

[lameduck]

Why dont people just respect others and not damage their property

Good luck to anyone who can afford a Rolls Royce

or a SUV or any other big car

they are paying more at the pumps and insurance etc

paying into the economy

and they probably worked hard to get it

The better the car the more reliable

[Lebanums]

It's not illegal to own or drive an SUV. Surely they would be better targeting the manufacturers.

Next, they'll block the chimneys of those with wood burners..

[smooch]

My own personal observation

I live near several families with large SUV type cars - which hardly ever move. the families walk to school and around the locality, Their cars appear to be used for the big family holiday trips a couple of times a year and the DIY type trips.

Also, I personally know families who have the big car (for driving across europe) and a small electric car for everyday useage. Lucky to be able to afford I know, but again, just because there is a big fat car on the drive, it may not be adding to pollution each day.

[goldilocks]

Would find it hard to be cross if they did - the impact on the immediate vicinity is horrifying where neighbours burn wood.

Looking back, people would now be horrified to have their kids sitting in a living room with all the adults chain smoking around them, but have no qualms about lighting a wood burner.

However, I'm not sure that the way to effect change should really be direct action against individuals, more individuals participating in collective action to effect that change. The SUV action is a crude means of raising awareness, but it isn't the way to stop SUVs being used in urban areas.

In terms of the 'why are SUVs a problem' it isn't just the carbon cost or output either, but the impact of them on vulnerable users of roads. That includes worse outcomes for those involved in collisions as vehicle inhabitants, pedestrians, cyclists etc as well as increased wear and tear on roads. I'm also not clear that the 'safety enhancements' Penguin refers to are actually backed by evidence as often such vehicles are more likely to flip because their centre of gravity is off and thus can cause greater damage from what would be a low level prang!

Lebanums Wrote:

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

> It's not illegal to own or drive an SUV. Surely

> they would be better targeting the manufacturers.

>

>

> Next, they'll block the chimneys of those with

> wood burners..

[redpost]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> And my point, very simply, is that what has been

> targeted is not just 'a big modern SUV' but also

> small modern SUVs. So it's about hatred of a type/

> style of car. Targeting big diesel vans would be

> far more effective if what you are on about is

> pollution and not class hatred.

>

> And, by the way, people may well park-up SUVs in

> Dulwich without exclusively using them in (our)

> urban settings. Asking why people should need them

> in Dulwich is no different from asking why

> residents should have the temerity to store their

> skis or scuba gear in Dulwich.

>

> And I'm always amused when they are also accused

> of 'rarely' using them, just leaving them parked

> up. So you would prefer to have them being used

> more?

Yes, a qashkai is a small SUV and a better choice than a large SUV, but pedestrians still come off worse in a collision. The safety argument for the driver is spurious as most are driven around urban environments and don't reach high speeds.

I'll gladly eat grottiest my hat if more than 0.5% of the porche macans and range rovers are regularly taken off road.

[Angelina]

"horrifying"

Hardly.

[redpost]

smooch Wrote:

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

> My own personal observation

>

> I live near several families with large SUV type

> cars - which hardly ever move. the families walk

> to school and around the locality, Their cars

> appear to be used for the big family holiday trips

> a couple of times a year and the DIY type trips.

>

> Also, I personally know families who have the big

> car (for driving across europe) and a small

> electric car for everyday useage. Lucky to be able

> to afford I know, but again, just because there is

> a big fat car on the drive, it may not be adding

> to pollution each day.

But the embedded energy and materials of the idle SUV could be better used for other purposes rather than just a status signal to the neighbours.

[lameduck]

redpost Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>Yes, a qashkai is a small SUV and a better choice than a large SUV, but pedestrians still come off worse in a collision. The safety argument for the driver is spurious as most are driven around urban environments and don't reach high speeds.

>

> I'll gladly eat grottiest my hat if more than 0.5%

> of the porche macans and range rovers are

> regularly taken off road.

you can killed or maimed by a small vehicle

and even by a push bike if you are old, a young friend of mine had her hip broken by pushbike

travelling reasonably slow

[goldilocks]

Do some research on the actual emissions and the effect on hyper localised air quality and then come back and tell me its fine.

Wood burners are the low tar cigarettes of our generation. Our children will have a rise in lung disease that would otherwise have declined as coal fires and more polluting vehicles become less normalised. We will look back in horror that we ever thought it was an acceptable lifestyle choice, but right now people don't want to hear it.

Remember that cigarettes' were sold as 'good for the lungs'

Edited to add a link to useful article questioning the 'SUVs' are safer mantra:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-problem-should-we-ban-suvs-from-our-cities

Angelina Wrote:

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

> "horrifying"

>

> Hardly.

[Penguin68]

The safety argument for the driver is spurious as most are driven around urban environments and don't reach high speeds.

The only argument for 'safety' I think I have made is that the driver's driving position, being higher, gives him/ her better visibility, thus being able to see, and respond in a timely fashion, to hazards. I would agree that SUVs are not particularly sporty (unlike hot hatches) and do not thus appeal so much to drivers for whom speed is important.

As SUVs (as a modern style) tend to be more modern than some cars on the road they also are more likely (like other modern cars) to have more safety features built in, though these are of less use in low speed urban environments.

I think that the issues about instability (which did effect 'high' SUVs in the past) have been partly overcome, and are less likely an issue, again, in low speed urban areas. Those SUVs with some element of battery power (self generating or plug-in) are again, because of the weight of the battery, more stable.

And I should say that in my motorway driving (and in the countryside) I have seen a lot of SUVs which suggests to me that to say 'most' are driven (implicitly almost exclusively) around urban environments may be an exaggeration.

[Penguin68]

Edited to add a link to useful article questioning the 'SUVs' are safer mantra:

If you follow the links in this article (which was about an horrific accident in Germany) you will find the key statistical safety claim links to a 2004 article - written at a time when the SUV style was mainly associated with very large (Chelsea Tractor) SUVs. 18 years is a long time in car design and road traffic statistics.

[Nigello]

Re "you should have done it to big diesel lorries, etc." I would have thought that such vehicles are carrying a lot more than one or two adults and a kid or two on a short, walkable journey, so their ultimate carbon footprint would be lower?

[Penguin68]

Re "you should have done it to big diesel lorries, etc." I would have thought that such vehicles are carrying a lot more than one or two adults and a kid or two on a short, walkable journey, so their ultimate carbon footprint would be lower?

If the issue is air pollution (which I thought it was) then carbon dioxide, the vital gas for all terrestrial plants and hence the whole of the human food chain isn't (in this context) a problem. So this isn't about carbon footprint.

I take my car to Durham on occasion, not a 'short, walkable journey' unless you live in Durham. I think, as well, that I said diesel vans, not lorries - which do tend to be parked up all around ED. Lorries tend not to be.

[CPR Dave]

The problem with diesel (as the labour government that led the dash to diesel neglected to tell us) is NOx emissions, not carbon emissions.

If people are concerned about carbon specifically there are other far more anti-social activities with a high carbon foot print that get completely ignored. Like dog ownership. A typical dog has the same annual carbon foot print as a range rover. And many dog owners have no civic responsibility at all, leaving sh*t all over the pavements and parks and letting their dogs p*ss on people's private property and all over the street.

Why aren't people going round deflating dogs too?

[Spartacus]

CPR Dave Wrote:

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

>

> Why aren't people going round deflating dogs too?

I've now got a vision of a Great Dane bring deflated to the size of a Chihuahua.

I wonder how supportive people would be of this tyre deflation protest if the person doing it was disturbed half way through and the car then driven on a motorway with a half inflated tyre which then caused an accident?

Whilst some are arguing its not a criminal act, it could well turn into something more serious in the above scenario. Every Action ....

[Artemis]

Or if the owner of the deflated car had a medical emergency, or needed to provide urgent care to someone and was delayed by the fact that their tyres had been deflated. It seems a senseless, childish form of protest to me.