Cars too wide for streets getting tyres slashed in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Direct action and linked to my idea of athe crusher which was obviously just an artsy metaphor.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Activists (not) slashing SUV tyres
(160 posts)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
“slashed“
Not sure that’s true
See other thread
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20766&page=9#post-359590
Posted 2 years ago # -
Just deflated them you saying.?
Fair enough
There were so many SUVs in the New Town we ran out of leaflets, we will be back
Go Slashers I say
Total madness of 21st century with cars too wide for streets accepted as normal
And Cars for living up a mountain track for driving round Stockbridge
Probably have to go through the Crusher twice to get down to a normal size.
Mental
Posted 2 years ago # -
I was particularly struck by the outraged mother of 3, who had to get a child to a hospital appointment, but luckily they have another car (in the New town!), so they coped.).
I mean, how in earth have I managed to get my child to hospital appointments without 2 cars?!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yes, lucky they had another car @SRD or they would have to have taken a taxi? How unthinkable.
Their point or certainly my point, People need to wake up and see what Fokkers they really are.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Apparently this behaviour is tantamount to attempted murder, as deflating a tyre "degrades" the sidewall and increases the chance of a blowout, many people on twitter are insisting. Nobody making that claim quite seems to be able to quantify the actual increased risk of such a thing, though from the level of moral indignation on display it seems so severe you might as well just club the driver over the head...
For real though, good on 'em. The paper-thin arguments that people deploy for owning an SUV certainly don't apply in one of the most central residential areas of the city, so it comes down to simple selfishness - if the residents of the New Town don't care that they're clogging up my lungs, congesting the streets, and making the roads more dangerous for me to cycle on, I certainly don't feel any obligation to care their w***panzers have been mildly inconvenienced.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It is tit for tat
As anyone driving an SUV is a murderer of the planet.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Challenge becomes that many older people (my parents included) have been conned into believing that a larger car is the only thing that they'll be able to get in and out of in their advancing age. Theirs is the only-slightly disproportionate Toyota one I believe.
Without good infra they will never see themselves having an alternative to a car, and with the marketing pushing large cars for comfort and safety, it's small surprise that they're going to pick up a larger car. I should note that they purchased the car without consulting me, although I suspect that my vocal views on large cars may have modulated their car size purchase. It's also going to be gold, so will depreciate faster than you can say "is that car yellow?"
Posted 2 years ago # -
I find this idea that SUVs are easier for older people to get in and out of bizarre. We struggled to get my father and my mother-in-law in and out of cars like that as they got frailer. they sell these 'handles' that you insert into doors, because it is so hard.
What I know did/does influence people to buy them (including elderly relatives) is the desire to be 'up higher' and 'have better visibility' and the perception that they are safer in them than in smaller cars.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Had a single occupancy massive Range Rover nearly squash me into the railings at Kings Junction a couple of weeks ago.
I could see what was about to happen, so hung back by the rear bumper, and watched the driver turn so that the space between the ridiculously huge boxy thing and the railings grew ever smaller....
Posted 2 years ago # -
You can also buy them from £19999
And credit at 5.4 per cent APR
Fuel consumption is maybe better than it used to be?
Never heard the easier to get into line before but yes I can see how that would sell them too.
Worrying that people who cannot get into cars still drive cars?
I can see this in the countryside where public transport is poor.
But Stockbridge? nah.
Up high in your tank and you are much safer in a crash is a real bizarre but true selling point.
As SRD points out their handling is rubbish
Designed to turn in a field not a city street
If one is going east through Currie and another west they can’t actually pass each other
Yet the collective lunacy goes on.
I vote slasher/deflator.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Worrying that people who cannot get into cars still drive cars?"
also as passengers. a big issue for my mother in buying new cars was 'could my father get in and out'.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@srd yes I remember shoving my father in law from below up into front seat of a mini bus taxi.
My sister has a modest sized 4x4 that seems like any other car for my mum with mobility issues to get in and out of.
Think it is a red herring
Same as guy who said he needed it to get to work in the original piece when he worked in Stirling?
Train, bus, normal car and even bicycle get you to Stirling . Bike maybe not an ideal commute, but lecky bike almost doable. Eg bridge, Dunfy, west fife path to Clacks and on from there. Nice on a sunny day.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Obviously major problem is unwillingness of Govs to regulate.
Part problem is ‘protect industry/jobs’ part ‘don’t upset motorists/voters’. But mostly it’s ‘cos they/politicians/people in general ‘don’t see a problem’.
Forget climate emergency - they see larger, wider, vehicles as normal/progress/etc with no/little concern for other road/space users.
Car-centric society indeed.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So, to poke the bear.
How would you feel if your tyres were deflated, and you had no means to quickly inflate - I'ev heard cyclists complain of such action on themselves on here and on Twitter (I've complained myself). Furiuos comments about vandalism etc - even when they have means to fix quickly, say tacks on cycle path.
Deliberately deflating anyones primary means of transport bike/bus/suv is vandalism pure and simple in my book.
On the access point - now for most this isn't the case of course - however I can say for my wife, who has an ankle fusion she suffers from extreme pain when she drives any 'normal' car, no pain driving her SUV. If she couldn't be provided with a disability SUV she would have to have a car converted to hand controls I suspect - or of course give up work, claim benefits, and be less productive to society given her limited ability to walk distances.
How did the vandals know they wearen't immobilising a disabled person who couldn't pump up the tyres? Blue badge not necessarily displayed - my wife only displays hers when in disabled bay.
On the handling point, I can say my wifes large bouncy 4X4 can go round the tight slip road from the M8 to M90 at 60 in the wet without any issues, whereas my low rear wheel drive sports car which should theoretically better at such things would be off the road at 35. 4x4's although they bounce about and don't feel planted do seem to stick to the road far better than 2 wheel drive cars (in my anecdotal experience of comparing 2 cars).
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Deliberately deflating anyones primary means of transport bike/bus/suv is vandalism pure and simple in my book."
definitely vandalism. don't think anyone's debating that?
Posted 2 years ago # -
@gembo I actually wasn't making a comment on 'handling'.
rather size / width and obliviousness of drivers to anyone around them.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"definitely vandalism. don't think anyone's debating that"
No, but seem to be condoning it....
Yodhrin "For real though, good on 'em."
Gembo "I vote slasher/deflator."
I'll just leave this here again...
"How did the vandals know they wearen't immobilising a disabled person who couldn't pump up the tyres? Blue badge not necessarily displayed - my wife only displays hers when in disabled bay."
Posted 2 years ago # -
It is vandalism but given the lack of permanent damage, not sure what the police could charge anyone with. The catchall of Breach of the Peace possibly
Posted 2 years ago # -
"How did the vandals know they wearen't immobalising a disabled person who couldn't pump up the tyres? Blue badge not nessesarily displayed - my wife only displays hers when in disabled bay."
Better not get a normal flat tyre then.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Better not get a normal flat tyre then."
There's clearly a difference...
Posted 2 years ago # -
"How did the vandals know they wearen't immobilising a disabled person who couldn't pump up the tyres? Blue badge not necessarily displayed - my wife only displays hers when in disabled bay."
Is this disabled person incapable of using a phone, like they would if they had gotten a puncture or been unable to start the vehicle in any one of a thousand other scenarios? Does being disabled mean you can't be a selfish git with no regard for the planet, our collective urban environment, or the safety of other road users? Also lets be real, 90% of the people who own these vehicles probably couldn't pump up the tyres themselves, as evidenced by Mrs "we wouldn't have been able to get to the hospital except we have a second car ready to go" mentioned above.
They're not going about targeting adapted minibuses or vans, there's no reason I've seen that a disabled person *must* have an SUV over an estate or, indeed, a hatchback - even those are gigantic by urban vehicle standards these days -
so to my mind the "what about the disabled?" card has about as much relevance as it does when people deploy it to prevent cycling infra. I don't treat people with disabilities any differently to anyone else unless they *require* different treatment because of their condition, so if I find it morally acceptable to deflate the tyres of a selfish mum-of-3, or a selfish man-with-important-work-meetings, then outside of a specially adapted vehicle it also has to be acceptable to do it to a selfish disabled person.EDIT: Oh and as to "but but tacs and glass and bikes!" - the difference is in the motivation. These guys are deflating the tyres(in a non-permanent way mind) of vehicles that endanger and cause illness, indiscriminately, that are owned out of pure selfishness because they're the convenient option, in order to try and draw attention to those facts and try to discourage their use, because governments and industry refuse to do anything. The people trying to destroy bike tyres are doing it out of simple spite, either because they think it's a larf, or because they just hate bicycles as "green lefty rubbish stealing my roads" or whatever nonsense. There's no purpose behind it other than screwing someone over for the sake of it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
looks like some of the vandals might be close to home, touched a nerve.
"there's no reason I've seen that a disabled person *must*"
Luckily for you, you don't need to understand why they are enabling for some people.
Vandalism is vandalism simple as that, and 'green' vandals deserve a kick in the balls as much as the tack/glass vandals. If you're brave enough to attack someones property you should be brave enough to understand the *concequences of that when caught. :)
*as mentioned earlier a phone call to the police is a waste of time.
Posted 2 years ago # -
looks like some of the vandals might be close to home, touched a nerve.
"there's no reason I've seen that a disabled person *must*"
Luckily for you, you don't need to understand why they are enabliong for some people.
Nah, I'm one of your sainted "disabled people", don't get out much so I'm hardly going to be deflating any tyres in the middle of the night. And actually yes, there is - if you're going to use "they're enabling" as a justification for why deflating SUV tyres is wrong, showing how is entirely relevant. Of course, you can't do that, because any way an un-adapted SUV would be enabling, a normal car would be enabling as well, and so we're back to "a person chose to buy an SUV because they wanted one" and thus, in the context of the current climate and urban environment situations, simple base selfishness.
Vandalism is vandalism simple as that, and 'green' vandals deserve a kick in the balls as much as the tack/glass vandals. If you're brave enough to attack someones property you should be brave enough to understand the concequences of that when caught. :)
Ooooh, you're hard. You're also wrong, but that comes as less and less of a surprise: vandalism *definitionally* requires destruction of property. Chucking glass and tacks on a bike path, destroying the tyres of bicycles(well, inner tubes mostly), is vandalism. Temporarily deflating the tyres of an SUV doesn't qualify, because nothing is destroyed or even damaged(spurious Muh Sidewall nonsense aside). Not one person who's property has been "attacked" in this campaign will have to buy a new tyre(unless it was already so unroadworthy they should have replaced it already, since "it was already old and worn out" is the only actual plausible claim I've seen about the sidewall thing), and if their ridiculous status symbols didn't weigh such a farcical amount they could even pump the tyres back up themselves in a few minutes with a foot pump.
Do you own a w***panzer yourself, by any chance...?
Posted 2 years ago # -
If you'd read my earlier post youd have seen my wife is disabled, she has an ankle fusion because of NF2 and a dozen or so operations over the last 30 years to 'fix' her foot/leg. If she drives a normal car she is in extreme pain. If she drives her wankpanzer she has no pain.
"because any way an un-adapted SUV would be enabling, a normal car would be enabling as well,"
The reason for the extreme pain in a normal car is because of the laid back seating position, which means her leg is in front of her body at an angle putting pressure on her fused ankle. However in a wankpanzer her foot is in a more natural upright position and therefor there is no pain. A disabled person should not have to give that justification to someone who has no idea of thier needs.
If she wasn't provided with a wankpanzer (or in our case we bought, kept for 10 years because that's better for the enviroment than getting a new car every 3 years. But instead take the disability payment in cash) she would need a car adapted with hand controls. I suspect the cost to the tax payer is less if she gets a wankpanzer. I would expect that her next wankpanzer will be an electric one. :) If she didn't have a wankpanzer, she would likely have to give up work, which she has a determnation not to do and hates being treated 'differently'. It's true that she could get a converted car with hand controls, but that would make her 'different'. Her wankpanzer allows her to be like 'everyone else'.
I'm not hard, it's just if anyone touches my bikes, or my car, or my house, or my family I find the best response to direct action is direct action. I'm more than happy for them to glue themselves to petrol stations or whatever else they want to glue themselves to etc.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I've just replaced my car as a reluctant member of the PCP treadmill and mostly reformed ex-petrolhead club.
Partially due to the supply chain issues the salesman was initially pushing us towards one of these beasts:
https://www.cupraofficial.co.uk/cars/cupra-range/formentor.htmlThankfully the day was saved by them finding a suitably normal-sized car from their Glasgow branch.
It does raise the question as to what constitutes a wankpanzer? Obviously your massive OTT premium SUVs like Range Rovers, BMX X5's, Porsche Cayennes etc are a given. After that it gets trickier though. Is a Nissan Juke more or less of a wankpanzer than an Audi A4 for example?
Also the car industry is actively pushing consumers into bigger and bigger cars and with the switch from ICE to electric I can see it becoming difficult to get a car that isn't a lardy SUV.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Is a Nissan Juke more or less of a w*nkpanzer than an Audi A4 for example?"
More IMO, on grounds of having once hired a Nissan Juke (well, it was what was given to me by a hire company) and it has abysmal external visibility - tiny side and rear windows at stupid angles, crazy blind spots around the front and sides. From outside observation, Range Rover Evoques have similar design flaws
Posted 2 years ago # -
If it even technically constitutes vandalism is debatable. There's no destruction of property, and "damage" is debateable.
comparing it with tacks which clearly do damage (& destroy inner tubes) is a stretch.
But even if it does technically constitute vandalism.. who cares? Planet is on a direct path to becoming unlivable according to a UN report this week. But we're seriously going to focus our efforts on protecting the rights of SUV drivers who are one of the few sources of growing emissions in the UK? That is an insane priority list.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Her wankpanzer allows her to be like 'everyone else'.
At the cost of everyone else. I also highly doubt the only vehicle in the world with a more upright seating position that doesn't require adapted controls is a full-fat SUV. Regardless, we're hardly going to reconcile our positions - I'm okay with direct action that causes zero actual harm at all, you're all right with reacting to someone touching your property with violence.
Agree to disagree eh.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"I also highly doubt the only vehicle in the world with a more upright seating position that doesn't require adapted controls is a full-fat SUV"
It's trigonometry. A van, or poeple carrier van that is tall would also suffice, but suspect would have the same size proffile and emmissions etc as her XC60.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
