there are loads of reasons people have larger vehicles nowadays and their emissions and fuel consumption are not a great deal Different to some cars.
I have a Sportage, which is probably classed as an SUV by most. I did not want a diesel but at the time I got it there will little to no choice other than that on the market. I only have it because I have bad arthritis in my right knee and needed the extra ride height. Getting in and out of my previous car was not only extremely painful but getting to be increasingly difficult in the tight parking spaces provided around here.
My wife has had a replacement knee and hip and was also struggling with this too. So it made sense to get a car where the stresses in our joints were considerably less as a result. My mother has a Mocka for the same reasons.
I really don't like the car very much tbh but there's no doubt that it's hugely more comfortable and suitable for our needs and is much, much cleaner than the dirty old diesel estate it replaced.
Tyres are one of the most polluting products out there.
70% of a tyre is made from oil-derived products. Carbon black, the stuff that makes tyres last longer (and why we have black tyres) is filthy stuff made from burnt oil so a double whammy in its production.
A ton of heat is needed to mould the tyre into shape and steel and nylon is needed to keep their shape.
When they get worn down, microparticles get released and are left all over our roads. These particles then get washed into our water systems, our food production and basically go everywhere.
Being an oil plastic/rubber product, they take years to degrade and leach poisons and carcinogens as they do.
Then we also have the worn-out tyre. Hardly any passenger car tyre will be retreated so it will generally go to into landfill. Some do get used as a fuel source, but this isn't exactly healthy!
Any vehicle, be it fuel, electric or pedal-powered uses tyres.
It's honestly shocking that more investment isn't made into a more green option to our current type of tyre!
On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."
Field day for lawyers. Criminal damage is going to be hard to establish, especially if there is a sympathetic jury. Reasonable cause is another concept to throw at a jury. I imagine there have been circumstances (possibly on private land as well) where the driver of a clamped car has let down the tyre to remove the clamp. I don’t know if that is or isn’t an offence. Indeed if the protestors clamped the vehicles instead of letting down the tyre would that be an offence? People get clamped in dubious circumstances all the time, would clampers generally be classed as law breakers? I believe one aspect of theft is ‘intent to permanently deprive’, so if a clamper, or ‘air stealer’ says they will return some unspecified time in the future to pump up the tyres, or remove a clamp when they deem it to be convenient for them, are they still criminal when they argue it is a temporary measure?
I suppose types of direct action increases when the social contract amongst people is diminished, or destroyed. The cohesion of British society has been steadily deteriorating since around 1979 and the great lurch forward was cemented in in 2016 and 2019. I feel those in power will become increasingly draconian in order to shape things to their ends. Hopefully they won’t manage it long term because as Orwell said ‘no bomb that ever burst can shatter the crystal spirit’. In the meantime we are condemned to suffer the pain of division. I suppose in a divided society there is little to lose by doubling down and becoming entrenched. Speaking personally, judging by what some fellow Addicks post on here, there are people and attitudes out there that I could never ever reconcile to. Direct action is something that manifests division and it may be all there is left to do in the eyes of an increasing number of people.
I don't agree. The 1970s were very divided - lots of strikes, very bad racism, lots of vadalism. Things improved a lot in the 1990s but appear to be on a downward spiral at the moment fuelled by social media. No reason to anticipate it won't turn again - throughout history chesion as ebbed and flowed.
Yes you have a point regarding the seventies. I suppose I might (mistakenly?) see those times as more about majority verses minority rather than the type of divided society we have now. What do you think might restore cohesion in the future?
I don't know. Just that history shows us that all societies swing up and down in terms of social cohesion. Historically speaking we are by no means at anything like a low point.
On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."
Field day for lawyers. Criminal damage is going to be hard to establish, especially if there is a sympathetic jury. Reasonable cause is another concept to throw at a jury. I imagine there have been circumstances (possibly on private land as well) where the driver of a clamped car has let down the tyre to remove the clamp. I don’t know if that is or isn’t an offence. Indeed if the protestors clamped the vehicles instead of letting down the tyre would that be an offence? People get clamped in dubious circumstances all the time, would clampers generally be classed as law breakers? I believe one aspect of theft is ‘intent to permanently deprive’, so if a clamper, or ‘air stealer’ says they will return some unspecified time in the future to pump up the tyres, or remove a clamp when they deem it to be convenient for them, are they still criminal when they argue it is a temporary measure?
You are way out of date, mate. Clamping on private land became illegal ten years ago. In any event, letting down your own tyres is perfectly legal. What isn't is damaging a wheel clamp by, for example, taking an angle grinder to it or using a bolt cutter to remove any padlock*. As that would be criminal damage. (But there wouldn't be a "sympathetic jury" or any jury for that matter - it would go before a Magistrate).
In any event the Govt. especially the local Govt in London, is responsible for the popularity of SUVs. There is no other way to comfortably traverse a speed bump around Charlton and Greenwich. I used to drive small low cars but the speed bumps are often capable of taking the bottom out of the oil sump, so I've gone large.
BTW, many road humps in the RBG are illegal in that they do not comply with The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999.
*Many padlocks - no matter how expensive - can be easily removed with nothing more than a drink can and a pair of scissors without causing damage to the padlock. Look it up on YouTube.
Edited to add: there are also "anti-theft" dust caps which are difficult to remove unless your average eco-warrior has a little "going equipped" kit; might be time to invest in some.
Thank you for this thorough reply. In terms of the humps in the road I take them slowly in my old Fiesta and no damage so far.
On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."
Field day for lawyers. Criminal damage is going to be hard to establish, especially if there is a sympathetic jury. Reasonable cause is another concept to throw at a jury. I imagine there have been circumstances (possibly on private land as well) where the driver of a clamped car has let down the tyre to remove the clamp. I don’t know if that is or isn’t an offence. Indeed if the protestors clamped the vehicles instead of letting down the tyre would that be an offence? People get clamped in dubious circumstances all the time, would clampers generally be classed as law breakers? I believe one aspect of theft is ‘intent to permanently deprive’, so if a clamper, or ‘air stealer’ says they will return some unspecified time in the future to pump up the tyres, or remove a clamp when they deem it to be convenient for them, are they still criminal when they argue it is a temporary measure?
Clear offence under section 22A of the RTA 1988. Agree could have test case under reasonable cause.
Not sure much of a filed day for lawyers. Legal aid work generally pays worse than the minimum wage.
It may well be that specific cases are clear, but none of us on an Internet forum are in a position to say. The law needs to take the circumstances of each case into account, "in such circumstances that it would be obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous". I imagine in lots of cases our hypothetical 'reasonable person' would say it's dangerous, but that's for a court to decide.
On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."
Field day for lawyers. Criminal damage is going to be hard to establish, especially if there is a sympathetic jury. Reasonable cause is another concept to throw at a jury. I imagine there have been circumstances (possibly on private land as well) where the driver of a clamped car has let down the tyre to remove the clamp. I don’t know if that is or isn’t an offence. Indeed if the protestors clamped the vehicles instead of letting down the tyre would that be an offence? People get clamped in dubious circumstances all the time, would clampers generally be classed as law breakers? I believe one aspect of theft is ‘intent to permanently deprive’, so if a clamper, or ‘air stealer’ says they will return some unspecified time in the future to pump up the tyres, or remove a clamp when they deem it to be convenient for them, are they still criminal when they argue it is a temporary measure?
You are way out of date, mate. Clamping on private land became illegal ten years ago. In any event, letting down your own tyres is perfectly legal. What isn't is damaging a wheel clamp by, for example, taking an angle grinder to it or using a bolt cutter to remove any padlock*. As that would be criminal damage. (But there wouldn't be a "sympathetic jury" or any jury for that matter - it would go before a Magistrate).
In any event the Govt. especially the local Govt in London, is responsible for the popularity of SUVs. There is no other way to comfortably traverse a speed bump around Charlton and Greenwich. I used to drive small low cars but the speed bumps are often capable of taking the bottom out of the oil sump, so I've gone large.
BTW, many road humps in the RBG are illegal in that they do not comply with The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999.
*Many padlocks - no matter how expensive - can be easily removed with nothing more than a drink can and a pair of scissors without causing damage to the padlock. Look it up on YouTube.
Edited to add: there are also "anti-theft" dust caps which are difficult to remove unless your average eco-warrior has a little "going equipped" kit; might be time to invest in some.
Thank you for this thorough reply. In terms of the humps in the road I take them slowly in my old Fiesta and no damage so far.
Old fiesta you say? - you should really be updating to a newer, more efficient, less polluting vehicle. The cost shouldn't come into it, you owe my children this.
Been looking at all sorts of cars, but will need a 4x4, most likely a pickup, for parts of my job.
Something I've noticed while lookng is that there's virtually no correlation between ULEZ, deisel, petrol, mpg, road fund licence band etc and the type of vehicle listed. So for example, there seems to be 3.0l deisel cars that only do 30 mpg, but are ULEZ friendly. Whereas there are 1.1l petrol motors that do 60+ mpg that aren't ULEZ but only £125 for road fund licence?
Would be nice to afford a motor that is suitable for purpose and also on the eco side, but I ain't got £50k to spend unfortunately.
I'm perhaps more in favor of direct action than some (I also think there's a bit of an American/UK cultural divide to some extent). But this just reeks of "we've run out of good ideas."
I'm not an organizer or activist, but from my experience, direct action tends to be most successful when it has a concrete and potentially achievable goal. Bree Newsome taking down the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina State House is a great example.
But this doesn't really achieve much, and it achieves nothing when compared to the immensities of Climate Change, apart from just inconvenience people.
I'm perhaps more in favor of direct action than some (I also think there's a bit of an American/UK cultural divide to some extent). But this just reeks of "we've run out of good ideas."
I'm not an organizer or activist, but from my experience, direct action tends to be most successful when it has a concrete and potentially achievable goal. Bree Newsome taking down the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina State House is a great example.
But this doesn't really achieve much, and it achieves nothing when compared to the immensities of Climate Change, apart from just inconvenience people.
I'm for direct action too. If I find someone letting air out of my tyres, putting my family and loved ones lives at risk, they will be dealt with directly
Another thing - there are a few people out there who pay to have their tyres filled with nitrogen rather than air. (As they do in motor racing as it gives a more consistent and reliable tyre pressure and doesn't have water vapour in it.) Would it be theft if an eco-warrior "intended to permanently deprive" you of your nitrogen by letting it escape into the air? LOL
I'm perhaps more in favor of direct action than some (I also think there's a bit of an American/UK cultural divide to some extent). But this just reeks of "we've run out of good ideas."
I'm not an organizer or activist, but from my experience, direct action tends to be most successful when it has a concrete and potentially achievable goal. Bree Newsome taking down the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina State House is a great example.
But this doesn't really achieve much, and it achieves nothing when compared to the immensities of Climate Change, apart from just inconvenience people.
I think the aim of these sort of actions tends to be to get publicity, and I suspect it’ll be successful in doing that. Here we are, for one thing.
Bloody arseholes, i have never understood why there is such support for criminals by some (same) quarters on this forum, perhaps when something like this effects them they may have a different view.
"Such support". You mean a handful of people who suggest that there may be other responses than the "I hope I catch them at it I'd give them what for" type of response that always crops up when things like this get raised? I thought the posts by Seth, KingK and Muttley contained clear and reasonable arguments.
Yes, bizarre behaviour to stick up for criminals, no wonder this country is just a soft touch. Bang em up for 10 years, they wont do it again, and bang the sympathizers up with them for the same period.
Bloody arseholes, i have never understood why there is such support for criminals by some (same) quarters on this forum, perhaps when something like this effects them they may have a different view.
"Such support". You mean a handful of people who suggest that there may be other responses than the "I hope I catch them at it I'd give them what for" type of response that always crops up when things like this get raised? I thought the posts by Seth, KingK and Muttley contained clear and reasonable arguments.
Yes, bizarre behaviour to stick up for criminals, no wonder this country is just a soft touch. Bang em up for 10 years, they wont do it again, and bang the sympathizers up with them for the same period.
I once caught someone trying to break into my car and it didn't end well for him . Just what gives these utter pricks the right to interfere or damage other people's property. I hope they get caught by someone with a vicious temper.
Happening down here in Brighton & Hove as well. They’ve even been doing it to electric vehicles so the ‘gas guzzling’ argument doesn’t really work. Wankers.
I'm perhaps more in favor of direct action than some (I also think there's a bit of an American/UK cultural divide to some extent). But this just reeks of "we've run out of good ideas."
I'm not an organizer or activist, but from my experience, direct action tends to be most successful when it has a concrete and potentially achievable goal. Bree Newsome taking down the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina State House is a great example.
But this doesn't really achieve much, and it achieves nothing when compared to the immensities of Climate Change, apart from just inconvenience people.
I think the aim of these sort of actions tends to be to get publicity, and I suspect it’ll be successful in doing that. Here we are, for one thing.
That was the argument for them glueing themselves to the roads too.
Has that had any sign of on impact on anything btw? Has anyone rushed out to get their homes surveyed, or has it even started more of a wider debate?
I'm perhaps more in favor of direct action than some (I also think there's a bit of an American/UK cultural divide to some extent). But this just reeks of "we've run out of good ideas."
I'm not an organizer or activist, but from my experience, direct action tends to be most successful when it has a concrete and potentially achievable goal. Bree Newsome taking down the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina State House is a great example.
But this doesn't really achieve much, and it achieves nothing when compared to the immensities of Climate Change, apart from just inconvenience people.
I think the aim of these sort of actions tends to be to get publicity, and I suspect it’ll be successful in doing that. Here we are, for one thing.
That was the argument for them glueing themselves to the roads too.
Has that had any sign of on impact on anything btw? Has anyone rushed out to get their homes surveyed, or has it even started more of a wider debate?
Of course not - they didn't want to actually pay for the insulation.
Bloody arseholes, i have never understood why there is such support for criminals by some (same) quarters on this forum, perhaps when something like this effects them they may have a different view.
"Such support". You mean a handful of people who suggest that there may be other responses than the "I hope I catch them at it I'd give them what for" type of response that always crops up when things like this get raised? I thought the posts by Seth, KingK and Muttley contained clear and reasonable arguments.
Actions cause reactions. Surely if people weren't touching others property, there'd be no need for the responses you're complaining about.
Manufacturers can legally build and sell SUVs - as a consumer I can legally purchase an SUV and accept the reduction in fuel efficiency and the added costs for as an example road fund licence (and the cost of tyres!). If that has to change then it is for Government to lead and to make the above conditions unlawful.
However there is a big difference between disruption by a protestor gluing themselves to a motorway (pain in the arse if you're stuck in traffic) and tampering with personal property that is legally owned and used.
On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."
Field day for lawyers. Criminal damage is going to be hard to establish, especially if there is a sympathetic jury. Reasonable cause is another concept to throw at a jury. I imagine there have been circumstances (possibly on private land as well) where the driver of a clamped car has let down the tyre to remove the clamp. I don’t know if that is or isn’t an offence. Indeed if the protestors clamped the vehicles instead of letting down the tyre would that be an offence? People get clamped in dubious circumstances all the time, would clampers generally be classed as law breakers? I believe one aspect of theft is ‘intent to permanently deprive’, so if a clamper, or ‘air stealer’ says they will return some unspecified time in the future to pump up the tyres, or remove a clamp when they deem it to be convenient for them, are they still criminal when they argue it is a temporary measure?
Clear offence under section 22A of the RTA 1988. Agree could have test case under reasonable cause.
Not sure much of a filed day for lawyers. Legal aid work generally pays worse than the minimum wage.
It may well be that specific cases are clear, but none of us on an Internet forum are in a position to say. The law needs to take the circumstances of each case into account, "in such circumstances that it would be obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous". I imagine in lots of cases our hypothetical 'reasonable person' would say it's dangerous, but that's for a court to decide.
Quite right. I shoudl have said clearly within the remit of s22A.
Bloody arseholes, i have never understood why there is such support for criminals by some (same) quarters on this forum, perhaps when something like this effects them they may have a different view.
"Such support". You mean a handful of people who suggest that there may be other responses than the "I hope I catch them at it I'd give them what for" type of response that always crops up when things like this get raised? I thought the posts by Seth, KingK and Muttley contained clear and reasonable arguments.
Yes, bizarre behaviour to stick up for criminals, no wonder this country is just a soft touch. Bang em up for 10 years, they wont do it again, and bang the sympathizers up with them for the same period.
Comments
My wife has had a replacement knee and hip and was also struggling with this too. So it made sense to get a car where the stresses in our joints were considerably less as a result. My mother has a Mocka for the same reasons.
I really don't like the car very much tbh but there's no doubt that it's hugely more comfortable and suitable for our needs and is much, much cleaner than the dirty old diesel estate it replaced.
70% of a tyre is made from oil-derived products. Carbon black, the stuff that makes tyres last longer (and why we have black tyres) is filthy stuff made from burnt oil so a double whammy in its production.
A ton of heat is needed to mould the tyre into shape and steel and nylon is needed to keep their shape.
When they get worn down, microparticles get released and are left all over our roads. These particles then get washed into our water systems, our food production and basically go everywhere.
Being an oil plastic/rubber product, they take years to degrade and leach poisons and carcinogens as they do.
Then we also have the worn-out tyre. Hardly any passenger car tyre will be retreated so it will generally go to into landfill. Some do get used as a fuel source, but this isn't exactly healthy!
Any vehicle, be it fuel, electric or pedal-powered uses tyres.
It's honestly shocking that more investment isn't made into a more green option to our current type of tyre!
Clear offence under section 22A of the RTA 1988. Agree could have test case under reasonable cause.
Not sure much of a filed day for lawyers. Legal aid work generally pays worse than the minimum wage.
In terms of the humps in the road I take them slowly in my old Fiesta and no damage so far.
Something I've noticed while lookng is that there's virtually no correlation between ULEZ, deisel, petrol, mpg, road fund licence band etc and the type of vehicle listed. So for example, there seems to be 3.0l deisel cars that only do 30 mpg, but are ULEZ friendly. Whereas there are 1.1l petrol motors that do 60+ mpg that aren't ULEZ but only £125 for road fund licence?
Would be nice to afford a motor that is suitable for purpose and also on the eco side, but I ain't got £50k to spend unfortunately.
I'm not an organizer or activist, but from my experience, direct action tends to be most successful when it has a concrete and potentially achievable goal. Bree Newsome taking down the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina State House is a great example.
But this doesn't really achieve much, and it achieves nothing when compared to the immensities of Climate Change, apart from just inconvenience people.
Too good for them and their sympathisers?
Just what gives these utter pricks the right to interfere or damage other people's property.
I hope they get caught by someone with a vicious temper.
Has that had any sign of on impact on anything btw? Has anyone rushed out to get their homes surveyed, or has it even started more of a wider debate?
However there is a big difference between disruption by a protestor gluing themselves to a motorway (pain in the arse if you're stuck in traffic) and tampering with personal property that is legally owned and used.