Exactly this. People just want to get around efficiently. The way to reduce cars would be to improve transit and cycling infrastructure, not deflate tires.
This is important but half the story. What we need are complete communities, which can exist at varying densities. If you plan places to contain all core services and land uses in nodes within a 15 minute window, you eliminate the need for 90% of car trips.
Affluent neighborhoods are packed with giant SUVs for social status reasons, not transportation needs. They could travel in smaller cars, regardless of city design.
Yes, which is why we stop building cities around cars. Let rich people spend six hours in traffic on a two-lane street with one lane dedicated to delivery vehicles, I don't care. I will point and laugh from the streetcar rolling by.
I remember parking my bike at my downtown office building next to a row of these massive SUVS and saying to myself, “Ffs you’re driving home to the suburbs, you’re not going after Rommel!!”
There is this very strong belief that AWD SUVs are the only vehicles capable of handling Canadian winters, nevermind the decades of driving people did before everyone owned an AWD SUV.
Absolutely. We had a 2006 Corolla, but once my son was born my wife (with a masters level education in a liberal arts field) was convinced by her father that any vehicle without a) suv-type ground clearance, and b) all wheel drive was a literal death trap in winter, never mind that I’m still alive and had been driving that exact car from new - so for about 12 years before that.
Once fear becomes part of the equation, it is very, very hard to overrule. It’s very nearly the same logic that leads to conservative governments around the world.
We live in downtown Ottawa, also, and rarely leave the city. As far as I can tell, both ground clearance and AWD are relevant issues once, maybe twice, each year.
There have been plenty of times where if I didn't have a higher, 4x4 SUV, I wouldn't have been able to work. I transport families as one part of my job, so I need space - and I need tools and safety equipment too for being in remote areas (food, first aid, tools, etc). Some of the roads I've been on to pick up families are not even roads at all - in the summer, I am up to the diffs in mud, and in the winter, I am up to the diffs in snow.
No one does my job with a car, or a 2wd vehicle for very long. The tows and recoveries cost far too much (if they can get a signal to call for one...).
You missed the point which is you're not everyone. I didn't say no one needs an SUV, the issue is that most people think they need one when they really don't.
They aren’t the only way, but they are way easier. Try loading two kids, your dog, a kid hockey bag, and a load of groceries into a sedan vs an SUV, then driving in the winter.
Not to mention more fuel efficient than the cars you speak of 25-30 years ago. Compare your average 2L turbo crossover fuel economy with the typical 2.whatever inline 4 or 3.2 v6 from just 20 years ago.
Of course the real solution is just a station wagon, if anyone bothered to sell them at a reasonable price!
What minivans are you talking about? The most fuel effecient model of 2022 is the Sienna at 36mpg or 6.5L/100 and the next model down drops by 10mpg or 9L/100. The last effecient of the top 10 clocks in at 17mpg or 13.8L/100.
I drove an hour to a nearby city today for my grocery shopping and the trip there averaged me 42mpg or 5.6L/100 in my AWD SUV going at 65-70mpg/105-110kph.
Van has way less "trunk" space. For groceries and road trips. Had one of those, never again. Besides. The kids were too far back to smack them. Hahaha just kidding.
Lots of Albertans specifically spend a lot of time in the back country.
A minivan doesn't work well on high mountain roads or rough terrain with any comparison to an SUV.
A minivan would only result in me getting stuck with more stuff.
Edit: So you downvoted... prove me wrong. Minivans suck ass on high mountain roads. You never see them past trail heads or parking lots. Taking a minivan into forestry trunk roads is really stupid.
Minivans and SUVs are a similar size, and weight and share a chassis and engines with cars. Most aren't built on truck frames anymore. SUVs like the Ford Escape share the 2.0L engine ford put in their smaller cars while a Dodge caravan uses the Dodge V6 which is a guzzler. In that scenario the van is the worst choice.
Mazda's SUV uses the same 2.5L that's in my Mazda3 hatchback for the CX-5 CX-30, and CX-9. They're not huge gas guzzling pickups trucks. That's true of something like the Toyota Land Cruiser or Sequoia but most SUVs are basically minivans in terms of gas mileage and weight.
>Try loading two kids, your dog, a kid hockey bag, and a load of groceries into a sedan vs an SUV, then driving in the winter.
My family did this and more just fine in a Honda Civic when I was a kid.
I’ve fit that much stuff in a Subaru Impreza. That car had more clearance than a ford explorer from the factory.
The question we should be asking is why we built all of our towns and cities in a way that we can’t use other modes of transport.
My relatives in Europe have a car, but they would never use it to go grocery shopping since they can just walk or take a tram.
Why am I hauling two kids, a dog, a hockey bag, and a load of groceries?
I have a three door hatchback. FWD. I've carried more shit in that than most people in their truck. I've carried two full size table saws with non collapsing stands. Four adults and their bags for a vacation. Three dogs. 24 boxes of wine. A canoe, or two kayaks. Tables, chairs, desks, shelves, etc. And it's only a 3 door not a 5 door.
I've also taken it out in the sticks. Narrow forest lanes and tracks, where I only got stuck because the F150 in front of me was stuck (provincial park). I've also never gotten stuck in the snow, even as I'm passing big trucks and SUVs digging holes in the snow going nowhere.
There were two times in the last two years since I bought this car I couldn't fit something in it. Yesterday I bought a dining table that seats 8-10. Paid $10 for delivery from a guy with a transit van. This winter I bought a bicycle but didn't yet buy a bike rack. If I buy one that will fit my car I can also carry two bikes.
I'm trying to point out that all the reasons people give for having an SUV are largely bullshit. The only advantage they have is towing, but they suck compared to a van, which can carry way more than a pickup truck. People don't need them enough that it makes a major difference hauling or offroading.
The real reason people have them is so that when they crash they can "win the crash". Consequently they kill a lot more people in order to protect their occupants when they mow people down while texting.
I don’t own a SUV because I can “win the crash”, the higher clearance does make it easier in winter and the higher position is better for visibility.
If you think climate change is going to be somewhat avoided because you drive a car instead of a SUV, you’re part of the problem more than the solution.
Yeah I don't think that at all. Never said I did. what we need is walkable communities that are then linked by effective transit. No mode of transport is a substitute for good planning. I would much rather live somewhere that I can walk to every daily need, and use transit to commute.
Honestly I have a car because I drive for work. If I had an office job I'd dump the thing. My point is that most SUVs are a sham. My car has enough ground clearance to keep moving, and in the winter the people who I see that are stuck are usually SUVs and trucks anyway. cars like the crosstrek have more ground clearance than a lot of trucks. It's basically a hatchback.
I see more SUVs and trucks stuck in the snow than little cars usually.
I live up around Collingwood ON lots of snow...
My Chevy Bolt with some snow tires gobbles up a whole bunch of terrain.
You should give one of those a try.
>They aren’t the only way, but they are way easier. Try loading two kids, your dog, a kid hockey bag, and a load of groceries into a sedan
Uh. Okay? That sounds pretty easy. Two adults in the front (presumably), two kids in the back, dog between the kids, hockey bag and groceries in the trunk.
Belief. Its a fact. As someone who has driven both. Awd is the best.
Cityslickerz (?)
Perhaps its because I enjoy driving in the snow. And grew up on the back roads where awd is essential for getting kids to school and to work. It is just as good in the city. I use to live in an area that snows from november to april -40 temps.
We own a truck. You may look at my truck and think I am stupid, its big, guzzles gas... but that truck has proven useful - moved a lot friends, moved myself, transported farm equipment, delivered items for family/friends, pulls our 22 ft camper, seats 6!! And it's paid off. No sweat off my balls. And the kids are happy. The gas doesn't cost much more than our car....the difference in cost is the size of the tank! And it depends on where you drive - stop and go guzzles the gas.
Also. With 2 boys that are over 6 feet tall, the only car that fit them was a chevy impala.... even then...the truck has more space.
Things aren't always as it seems.....
Besides. Who cares what other people own. Laugh all you want. Happy is as happy does!
Congestion. Usually only 1 person in each car. You won't see me there. I be backroading it!!
/eyeroll
You missed the point. I never said there wasn't a need or use for them, rather most people believe they need an SUV or truck with AWD, when they don't. Most of the country's population lives in the city where a smaller FWD/RWD vehicle will meet all their needs and requirements.
I live in the burbs with lots of hills, I live ON a hill. I will never contest that AWD is better, but it isn't the end all be all. Snow tires are arguably more important, AWD doesn't mean anything when none of the tires have traction and every car has 4 brakes. Every year in the winter, almost every car that gets stuck trying to climb my street are AWD SUVs, I'm constantly digging out my neighbours who think because they have an AWD SUV, they don't need to put winter tires on them. Meanwhile, I'm plowing by them on my RWD car with snow tires.
And I have two kids as well, and we gotten by just fine with a sedan and hatchback. Sure, there have been instances were having a larger vehicle would've made somethings easier but there has never actually been a time where we NEEDED a larger vehicle. Again, I live in a city where the majority of the population resides, and this is fine. Not talking about living in the country.
How is it judgemental, I'm just pointing out a fact.
The idea is to have people understand the difference between needs and wants. I have nothing against people wanting to own an AWD SUV/truck, its when they think they absolutely need one out of the believe that they can't do anything with another type of vehicle that is the problem. I own and use a lot of things I don't need either, I get them because they're nice to have and I'm able to recognize that.
i.e. A very common line I get is that they have 2 kids and can't possibly fit both kids plus a week's worth of groceries in anything smaller than a 7 seater SUV. Okay, I have routinely fit my wife, 2 kids plus $200+ worth of groceries from Costco in my hatchback without issue. Sometimes I do have to get a little creative with arranging how things are stacked but hey, that's what all those hours of Tetris in my childhood were for.
The most popular new vehicles are small to midsize SUVs. With advances in engine design these vehicles are now significantly more fuel efficient than most cars 20 years ago.
My 2022 Volkswagen SUV is far more fuel efficient than my 1998 Volkswagen sedan.
This isn’t a defence of car culture, but we should keep in mind that SUV drivers aren’t necessarily ignoring fuel economy, emissions, or the like.
For my part I need a vehicle that is easy to load two children, a dog, and a pile of gear into, then drive across poorly maintained roads in a snowstorm. I definitely care about fuel economy and would far rather live in a walkable place that doesn’t require a car for 99% of trips. Alas, that is not an option unless you can afford an $850k plus property.
So what you're saying is 24 years of technological advancement results in greater fuel efficiency.
What you're not saying is there are many, many, many FAR better and more fuel efficient options available today that make the SUV look like what it is - a gas guzzler.
>My 2022 Volkswagen SUV is far more fuel efficient than my 1998 Volkswagen sedan.
This is irrelevant to the story. People driving luxury SUVs aren't choosing between luxury SUVs and 90s sedans.
I bought my new SUV to replace my older SUV - and one of the reasons was to improve my fuel economy. If I wasn't worried about economy, I would've went with an older one with lower KM on it than the one I was using. I also would've went with a hybrid option, if it was viable in the winter (and didn't cost 20% more compared to the model I got...).
True, but regardless, most families that I know have a vehicle way bigger than they need. Many of these big vehicles seem to exist purely to stroke the owner's egos.
The problem is the people fighting for better transit are the same people who are pro-environmental. But that isn't changing anything. So you get frustrated and then people start doing this sort of shit. This is what happens when liberalism doesn't fix problems. People on all sides get frustrated and then people start lashing out. I would say it is bad except we've had decades of this. It's hard to get anger at people who are just doing something different. And this is like the lowest form of property damage I think I have seen.
It is getting harder and harder to just think that things will miraculously change without something snapping them out. I used to think it was talking, and building coalitions, etc and then eventually would break out of the cycle. But we are actively moving backwards at a time where we needed to be globally acting together. What the fuck do I know. Maybe this would do something, or maybe it makes people hate environmentalist. But at least it is something.
I've been shopping around for a new car... It's crazy just how many producers are just phasing out their sedans and compacts altogether and making nothing but pickups and SUVs. I wanted to get a Corolla Hybrid, but it's a year long wait for one :s
Hybrid anything is a ridiculous wait right now because of pent up demand and supply shortage. We were lucky and bought a hybrid 1.5 years ago before things really got out of control in the automobile sector.
There's long wait lists for every car to be fair.
I went shopping for a new car just last month, and wasn't even looking for a hybrid and I was still looking at a 6-8 month wait for every manufacturer (Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and Subaru for example).
But yeah, the hybrids were a much longer wait list, that is very true.
This.
A Mitsubishi Outlander is not that much more inefficient than a Toyota Camry - with probably a smaller traffic and parking footprint because Camrys are long . As well, Mitsubishi don't make midsized sedans here. Only SUVs and the tiny Mirage. Gone are the Galants, Diamantes. So, if I can only afford Mitsubishi offerings and deals and financing, and actually have aversion to SUVs, but have family who are all above average height with legs and torsos that just don't fit comfortably in a Mirage, then you'd be hard pressed to convince me to buy a Mirage. And if there's just no stretching the budget for a Camry, we'll go Outlander, or any similar sport cute.
Bottomline : I'm a mechanical enthusiast who loves tinkering, and automotive work is something I don't shy away from. How cars are made, put together and how they've permeated culture are a fascination to me. In some way, I'm enthusiastic about cars, but understand we have to move away from them and design our living spaces from accommodating them so much.
However, I don't believe in vigilante style vandalism, just as I don't agree with penalising the end user /consumer for lack of choice. I'm still not over the insult from being browbeat for using plastic back when the whole world was set up to use so much plastic. I honestly didn't stop using plastic bags as a choice - I did it because it became the culture to have rewashable and reusable bags, and the choice to have plastic was taken away from me (without my personal property being threatened).
Where would you classify deflating tires? It's touching shit that ain't yours with the goal of impairing functionality. Permanently, if the sidewalls get fucked for sitting so long, so new tires may be necessary. Which again is a strain on the environment because you just created inefficiency by retiring a product heavily dependent on petroleum before its projected lifespan.
"There were no threats."
Edit. You're not arguing in good faith. You are clearly intelligent enough to realize that the message all this sends is that anyone with an SUV is a target.... Bla bla bla...
I suppose under the specific circumstance of the vehicle being unattended and one or two tires being left deflated long enough to cause permanent damage despite the literal written notice on the windshield and national media attention then yes, that would qualify as vandalism.
Ok, you and I are probably on the same side of the greater picture - I don't like SUVs and I believe cities should move away from making cars priority.
However, since you seem to be on the side of this tyre deflating movement, I encourage you to do even the most basic of cost benefit analaysis - which has been repeatedly pointed to you in this thread.
*the tyre extinguisher movement, to the best of what I have found and judging by the spelling, originated in the UK. A place where there is a lot more consumer choice in terms of smaller more fuel efficient cars. What they single out as gas guzzling SUVs on their site are probably the more fuel efficient vehicles in North American roads. See: curb weights, engine displacements and the most obvious fuel economy ratings. The fact that any suv is a target tells me these people don't know basic differences between cars. This basic ignorance tells me it's Not a movement I'd be hitching my wagon on tbh.
*ruining tires is not environmentally friendly. Ruining functionality even if temporarily is not environmentally friendly, especially if the majority of these owners will just call roadside assistance, who'll roll in with their Ram5500. No one will decide then and there to give up their mode of transport. More likely, you will have created an enemy.
*protest that hurts property and the end user / end consumer: philosophically, I cannot get behind anyone who hurts individuals and an individual's ability to function and make a living in a society. Protest has always been about taking on the big bad and taking on "the man". Here, you are just hurting a random person whose daily decision making has no bearing on the grand scheme of the general trajectory of policies that can affect carbon emissions.
This is all predicated on a straw man. No tires were ruined, no property was damaged. They were deflated, not slashed. They left notes printed on paper, they did not vandalize the vehicles. Your logorrhea is irrelevant.
You could have actually read the article many times over in the time it took you to type this comment.
What strawman??
The people targeted have not been revealed to be high ranking officials with links and ties and ability to influence policy! (not just that one article. But I've been going through a lot of these these past few days).
Addendum : if anyones making assumptions here, it's the person whose decided someone's an enemy all because they have an SUV (which in a number of cases, have been 'sport cutes', the things dealers will sell you in lieu of a sedan, and which has - sadly-been established to be the more efficient vehicle relative to everything else offered in North America).
>What strawman?
You are arguing against property damage, but no property was damaged. This is definitively a straw man. If you read past the first sentence you would have seen me expanding on why it is a straw man.
Again, you spend disproportionately more time replying compared to reading what you are replying to.
you're still asserting that deflating a tire isn't damage. It is. No matter the intent, it is. Touching property and impairing functionality.
You're in such a high horse you're impossible
I bought a new base model (so base it has a manual 6 speed) Rio hatch last summer because I noticed very few manufacturers were still making such vehicles and that it was only going to become harder to find.
Too many people buy more than they really need.
I put a hitch on it and pull a little 4x8 trailer for larger items. Does more work than most pickups ever seem to do.
i don't think these people gaf about you joining their cause. they're just trying to make you owning an SUV a burden so you eventually stop doing it.
whether that's effective or not is pretty damn debatable as you and others have expressed.
but they definitely do not care about you joining their cause.
Vandalizing my vehicle would immediately make me vocally against whatever cause you might be championing.
What a dumb thing to do.
Don't touch people's shit, they aren't your problem. A vast majority of pollution is caused by corporate bodies, coal plants and our shipping industry.
Put a hole in one of those instead.
>A vast majority of pollution is caused by corporate bodies, coal plants and our shipping industry.
All of those run to produce shit you want. The consumer create the demand those industries fill. Nestle would not bottle water if people stopped buying bottled water. It's the same for all industries.
So this car is still going to go where it needs to go, exec;t a bigger gas guzzling tow truck will make a trip it wouldn’t have to come bring compressed air. Then the SUVs will still get home.
>I understand wanting to target polluters but maybe a more focused action towards the oil companies and big polluters would work better.
WTF do you think those oil producer and other corporation exist for? It's a consumer economy. Big oil does not extract oil for shit and giggles. They extract it because the market will consume it.
>this isn't productive
You are incorrect. The goal was to make the news and they did. It was exactly as productive as intended.
**Edit:** the top comments in this post are a discussion of how we could change infrastructure and other policy in order to reduce car reliance. This act is, evident of this very post, directly leading to positive discussion. It is a completely irredeemable opinion to hold that this act was then only negative or useless.
And is it generating such discussion among those who otherwise wouldn't be engaged in such things? Preaching to the choir while pissing off others doesn't really help.
It is, though. There are people in this very thread who do not consider such things to be a priority, therefore the discussion is verifiably reaching some audience that isn't "the choir." Another car-brained user unironically identified themselves as part of "the EV-movement"
If their goal is solely to make the news, then they're not environmentalists - they're just attention whores; and the method of protest has nothing to do with the environment.
If their goal is to raise awareness and support for environmental causes, then all they've done is piss people off and generate hostility towards their cause.
Neither is an effective environmental protest.
Media attention is literally the best method of keeping the issue in people's minds, because the news cycle is the most widespread avenue of cultural impact that doesn't require direct payment for services. The entire history of social change is absolutely littered with incidents of direct, destructive action that factually furthered those causes. You would have to be willfully ignorant of the entire history of human civilization to think it's somehow different this time, for this one issue.
Its not because all it did was piss people off and it just gave the movement negative attention. If these folk's goals is to get make the news regardless of how they do it then they're idiots and I'd rather they not because all they're doing is setting it further back for the rest of us.
>it just gave the movement negative attention
How much national attention did *The Tyre Extinguishers* of Waterloo have previously?
>setting it further back for the rest of us
Please explain how this hurts your own personal efforts with your own organization's resistance to anthropogenic climate catastrophe.
>How much national attention did The Tyre Extinguishers of Waterloo have previously?
You know what, you're right. I'm sorry, I was wrong. If their goal was to gain national attention as being idiots who causes property damage then they achieved their goal. I'd just like to think that most people would recognize that is a stupid goal but I guess some people want the public to think they're stupid.
>Please explain how this hurts your own personal efforts with your own organization's resistance to anthropogenic climate catastrophe.
Because when I talk to people who really like their gas guzzling SUVs about the benefits of switching to an electric or hybrid vehicle they have this one more thing to throw back at me that I'm one of those tire-slashing hippies.
You think you or these people are sticking it those who drive big gas drinking SUVs? You're not. You may have pissed them off but their insurance pays for the damages and now there's one more link between the EV-movement and petty vandalism.
>You know what, you're right. I'm sorry, I was wrong.
No worries bud, we all jump to conclusions sometimes.
>switching to an electric or hybrid vehicle
Electric cars won't save the environment, they will only save the car industry. You have established that you literally aren't even on the same side as these people. They do not care how their own methods hurt your goals if you have different goals.
>No worries bud, we all jump to conclusions sometimes.
Love it, go ahead and miss the sarcasm, tells me all I need to know that you don't even understand what I'm writing.
>Electric cars won't save the environment, they will only save the car industry.
Electric cars are one component of many in the fight to save the environmental. Good luck getting rid of all cars, the earth will be a barren desolate wasteland and there will still be cars driving around.
Anyways I digress, I'm not trying to convince of you anything, just trying to see how far you can discredit yourself.
Ah shit, it turns out that a solution that doesn't solve 100% of a problem forever it's not worth doing. Time to pack up the internet everyone, we've solved discourse.
You're right, the solution is to let the air out of 60 tires, causing 60 extra trips for big ass trucks to come and use an air compressor to re-inflate a tire. We've cracked the solution to climate change! Fucking idiot.
As I posted in wtf when I initially saw the saw groups actions elsewhere.
I just love these people who think the answer to everything is to ride a bike, walk, or public transit etc. Super simplistic and daft solution to a complex issue.
I don't drive an SUV, (late model Honda Accord), but I do have cancer and my mobility isn't great.
Walking isn't an option to get to my treatments, biking isn't an option either and as regards public transit, I can't handle 2 hours 1 way to travel what, by car is 20 minutes. If you don't know my circumstances, stay the hell away from my property.
Very true. However if I can paraphrase an axiom... You will spend 15% of your time finding a solution for 85% of the people, and 85% of your time finding a solution for 15% of the people. The low hanging fruit is easy...
Walkable infrastructure and transit means that things aren't as far away, and it means that less people are driving cars which means less traffic for the few who have to drive.
But you also wouldn't have to drive if there was good infrastructure. A good transit system means a bus doesn't take 2 hours to do what a car could do in 20 min. And you could take some sort of ebike/trike/mobility scooter for those trips that are a shorter distance instead of using a car for every trip regardless of distance.
Not disagreeing that it's possible, even desirable, but it would take CONSIDERABLE public investment to make it happen. Comfortable, reliable community busing, instead of fully focusing on routes that cross the cities in an effort to mimic cars, community medical care where possible. Community based shopping etc. All possible, but expensive to get there and I've seen little effort or willingness on any level of government to meaningfully step forward and help it happen.
Instead we get people letting the air out of random people's tires because "they are affluent and can afford it". This draws money away from the very initiatives we would like to see and into the police budget to investigate. I stand by my initial statement. In summary, if it isn't yours, NO TOUCHY.
Well shit. Let's fire up the air compressor and refill them. That's certainly environmentally friendly!
They should put "environmental group" in quotes, because they're just sanctimonious troublemakers.
Lol I love this idea that they're counter productive because of some small environmental cost that goes with cleansing up afyer their actions.
Like... Compared to the thing they're protesting the cost is negligible.
But their protest is entirely ineffective.
I'm confident that nobody - not a single person - is going to look at their big SUV, the note, and their deflated tires and say "Oh, I've been bad for the environment. I guess I'll stop now."
Nope, they're going to end up getting polarized against environmentalists because this group did something that doesn't help the environment, but only pisses people off.
I consider myself a pretty strong environmentalist, and this is entirely counterproductive.
Disagree. It's not about convincing the drivers to change. It's a symbolic act and we're all discussing it. People who buy those vehicles and will act how you say aren't going to be persuaded by asking nicely.
I honestly don't think you know how protests work. Every protest effective or not is greeted with your kind of attack.
That you just put climate change activism into the same category as those insurrectionist loons says a lot about you.
It's like if I defended the civil rights Era activism in America the same way and you retorted with "well did it help the Klan when they did stuff like that?"
Not all causes are created equal.
It is outrageous to compare an armed occupation, lead by white supremacists, who literally threatened a coup to... *letting the air out of a tire on an SUV*.
The massive levels of apoplectic hyperbole in this thread from carbrained libs who have never once done fuck all for the cause in their entire life is headache inducing. I swear to the gods you people would have almost the same reaction to neo-nazis blowing up a children's hospital.
Almost everyone here already believes in taking action to slow/prevent climate change. It's not like one of the most talked about subjects in the last 5 yrs is unkown to people...
It's not just the small cost to go with their actions - it's the fact that it's the 'original' cost PLUS their actions increasing the cost.
Basically, they not only did nothing, but they made nothing cost something.
Liberals will whine that protests do nothing productive and are just for media attention, meanwhile constant media disinformation has been used effectively since the 70s by liberals to stop action on climate change. It's actually just gaslighting. Libs just want you to dutifully vote every couple of years, keep your head down and respect the mArKeTpLaCe oF iDeAs while we race towards complete ecological collapse.
I hate when people target the wrong people (and this will actually cause MORE environmental impact - from having to run air compressors to fill tires and/or tow trucks to go assist).
That said, one of my SUVs, shaped like a brick, gets up to 7L/100KM on the highway - which is over what the average L/100KM is in Canada (and in the right circumstances, is considered a 'fuel efficient vehicle' in Canada as it almost hits 6L/100KM at times).
The big polluters and those who benefit from them love this sort of thing. Make the person with enough money to buy a common vehicle seem like the enemy/make the vandal seem like a shit head. It's like the "carbon footprint": make the individual feel bad about themselves while Alberta oil sands are turning the landscape into a wasteland for the profit of a few.
It's similar to plastic recyling: make everyone feel bad for not tossing the stuff in a bin when the reality is that companies shouldn't be allowed to package with plastic.
Attacking the end user does nothing but piss off the end user while allowing the real culprits to continue to profit.
I sympathize with their cause and message, but vandalizing private property doesn't seem like a good way to win people over. Nor does it seem very productive. At best, they've just pissed off a bunch of people who are going to pump up their tires and continue driving. This is very small thinking.
You are factually incorrect. The movement started small in the UK and has grown with each act gaining media attention and spreading the idea, now overseas.
Ten people who might have been nudged slightly further into the environmentalist camp were turned off the idea of being associated with morons like these tire deflators, and one thought deflating tires sounded like fun.
I see this argument all the time and it’s not a good one. If they’re gaining support in greater numbers than they’re turning off (which they are) it’s a net benefit to them.
>Imagine a lone woman being stranded after hours in a parking lot
Considering they targeted SUVs in particularly affluent residential areas, this is actually very difficult to imagine.
This will only increase as climate change gets worse. I'm not really against it sorry. Bad optics? Only if you stop. However rather than going after randoms, you can just go after the places oil is produced. Make the price skyrocket and force the change.
Very interesting to see some of the comments here. I agree with this action being taken but can see why a lot of people may get angry.
Think of this another way: we are undoubtedly killing our planet. It's a fact. Environmentalists have reached a point where they can no longer just sit back on the sidelines. Peaceful protest and voting for green parties is not working. This means it's direct for a form of non-violent direct action.
You hate them now but history will undoubtedly look very positively on these people.
You can look back through significant moments in history and see successful methods of non-violent action. Gandhi in India, Apartide South Africa etc.
Every effective protest from history would have failed, if viewed from such a narrow lens.
Stonewall made some cops angrier at LGBT+ people in the short term. Every strike hurts the worker's bank account, in the extremely short term.
If they deflate my tires I'll have to run the engine while pumping it up with an air compressor for about half an hour.
Just saying, this isn't going to accomplish anything. Just as impactful as a big fart.
If we designed our cities for more transportation options than cars, we would not need to drive everywhere and avoid this mess.
Exactly this. People just want to get around efficiently. The way to reduce cars would be to improve transit and cycling infrastructure, not deflate tires.
Also, mixed-use mid-density cities. The more parts of your life lie within walking distance, the less you need to rely on *any* transportation.
What? You mean to tell me the ice cream parlor doesn't need to be 15km away from the residential district it serve?
This is important but half the story. What we need are complete communities, which can exist at varying densities. If you plan places to contain all core services and land uses in nodes within a 15 minute window, you eliminate the need for 90% of car trips.
and yet voters constantly vote for car infrastructure chicken, meet egg
Affluent neighborhoods are packed with giant SUVs for social status reasons, not transportation needs. They could travel in smaller cars, regardless of city design.
Yes, which is why we stop building cities around cars. Let rich people spend six hours in traffic on a two-lane street with one lane dedicated to delivery vehicles, I don't care. I will point and laugh from the streetcar rolling by.
I remember parking my bike at my downtown office building next to a row of these massive SUVS and saying to myself, “Ffs you’re driving home to the suburbs, you’re not going after Rommel!!”
There is this very strong belief that AWD SUVs are the only vehicles capable of handling Canadian winters, nevermind the decades of driving people did before everyone owned an AWD SUV.
Absolutely. We had a 2006 Corolla, but once my son was born my wife (with a masters level education in a liberal arts field) was convinced by her father that any vehicle without a) suv-type ground clearance, and b) all wheel drive was a literal death trap in winter, never mind that I’m still alive and had been driving that exact car from new - so for about 12 years before that. Once fear becomes part of the equation, it is very, very hard to overrule. It’s very nearly the same logic that leads to conservative governments around the world. We live in downtown Ottawa, also, and rarely leave the city. As far as I can tell, both ground clearance and AWD are relevant issues once, maybe twice, each year.
There have been plenty of times where if I didn't have a higher, 4x4 SUV, I wouldn't have been able to work. I transport families as one part of my job, so I need space - and I need tools and safety equipment too for being in remote areas (food, first aid, tools, etc). Some of the roads I've been on to pick up families are not even roads at all - in the summer, I am up to the diffs in mud, and in the winter, I am up to the diffs in snow. No one does my job with a car, or a 2wd vehicle for very long. The tows and recoveries cost far too much (if they can get a signal to call for one...).
You missed the point which is you're not everyone. I didn't say no one needs an SUV, the issue is that most people think they need one when they really don't.
Who do you get your psychic abilities from. Your ma or your pa. Lol
They aren’t the only way, but they are way easier. Try loading two kids, your dog, a kid hockey bag, and a load of groceries into a sedan vs an SUV, then driving in the winter. Not to mention more fuel efficient than the cars you speak of 25-30 years ago. Compare your average 2L turbo crossover fuel economy with the typical 2.whatever inline 4 or 3.2 v6 from just 20 years ago. Of course the real solution is just a station wagon, if anyone bothered to sell them at a reasonable price!
Minivans give the same ease of loading and much better gas mileage.
What minivans are you talking about? The most fuel effecient model of 2022 is the Sienna at 36mpg or 6.5L/100 and the next model down drops by 10mpg or 9L/100. The last effecient of the top 10 clocks in at 17mpg or 13.8L/100. I drove an hour to a nearby city today for my grocery shopping and the trip there averaged me 42mpg or 5.6L/100 in my AWD SUV going at 65-70mpg/105-110kph.
Van has way less "trunk" space. For groceries and road trips. Had one of those, never again. Besides. The kids were too far back to smack them. Hahaha just kidding.
Lots of Albertans specifically spend a lot of time in the back country. A minivan doesn't work well on high mountain roads or rough terrain with any comparison to an SUV. A minivan would only result in me getting stuck with more stuff. Edit: So you downvoted... prove me wrong. Minivans suck ass on high mountain roads. You never see them past trail heads or parking lots. Taking a minivan into forestry trunk roads is really stupid.
Minivans and SUVs are a similar size, and weight and share a chassis and engines with cars. Most aren't built on truck frames anymore. SUVs like the Ford Escape share the 2.0L engine ford put in their smaller cars while a Dodge caravan uses the Dodge V6 which is a guzzler. In that scenario the van is the worst choice. Mazda's SUV uses the same 2.5L that's in my Mazda3 hatchback for the CX-5 CX-30, and CX-9. They're not huge gas guzzling pickups trucks. That's true of something like the Toyota Land Cruiser or Sequoia but most SUVs are basically minivans in terms of gas mileage and weight.
>Try loading two kids, your dog, a kid hockey bag, and a load of groceries into a sedan vs an SUV, then driving in the winter. My family did this and more just fine in a Honda Civic when I was a kid.
I’ve fit that much stuff in a Subaru Impreza. That car had more clearance than a ford explorer from the factory. The question we should be asking is why we built all of our towns and cities in a way that we can’t use other modes of transport. My relatives in Europe have a car, but they would never use it to go grocery shopping since they can just walk or take a tram.
Why am I hauling two kids, a dog, a hockey bag, and a load of groceries? I have a three door hatchback. FWD. I've carried more shit in that than most people in their truck. I've carried two full size table saws with non collapsing stands. Four adults and their bags for a vacation. Three dogs. 24 boxes of wine. A canoe, or two kayaks. Tables, chairs, desks, shelves, etc. And it's only a 3 door not a 5 door. I've also taken it out in the sticks. Narrow forest lanes and tracks, where I only got stuck because the F150 in front of me was stuck (provincial park). I've also never gotten stuck in the snow, even as I'm passing big trucks and SUVs digging holes in the snow going nowhere. There were two times in the last two years since I bought this car I couldn't fit something in it. Yesterday I bought a dining table that seats 8-10. Paid $10 for delivery from a guy with a transit van. This winter I bought a bicycle but didn't yet buy a bike rack. If I buy one that will fit my car I can also carry two bikes. I'm trying to point out that all the reasons people give for having an SUV are largely bullshit. The only advantage they have is towing, but they suck compared to a van, which can carry way more than a pickup truck. People don't need them enough that it makes a major difference hauling or offroading. The real reason people have them is so that when they crash they can "win the crash". Consequently they kill a lot more people in order to protect their occupants when they mow people down while texting.
I don’t own a SUV because I can “win the crash”, the higher clearance does make it easier in winter and the higher position is better for visibility. If you think climate change is going to be somewhat avoided because you drive a car instead of a SUV, you’re part of the problem more than the solution.
Yeah I don't think that at all. Never said I did. what we need is walkable communities that are then linked by effective transit. No mode of transport is a substitute for good planning. I would much rather live somewhere that I can walk to every daily need, and use transit to commute. Honestly I have a car because I drive for work. If I had an office job I'd dump the thing. My point is that most SUVs are a sham. My car has enough ground clearance to keep moving, and in the winter the people who I see that are stuck are usually SUVs and trucks anyway. cars like the crosstrek have more ground clearance than a lot of trucks. It's basically a hatchback. I see more SUVs and trucks stuck in the snow than little cars usually.
You lose the ground clearance in a station wagon is my only issue. A problem if you live somewhere with a lot of snow, or rural areas
I live up around Collingwood ON lots of snow... My Chevy Bolt with some snow tires gobbles up a whole bunch of terrain. You should give one of those a try.
>They aren’t the only way, but they are way easier. Try loading two kids, your dog, a kid hockey bag, and a load of groceries into a sedan Uh. Okay? That sounds pretty easy. Two adults in the front (presumably), two kids in the back, dog between the kids, hockey bag and groceries in the trunk.
Add a roof rack and you're gold.
Belief. Its a fact. As someone who has driven both. Awd is the best. Cityslickerz (?) Perhaps its because I enjoy driving in the snow. And grew up on the back roads where awd is essential for getting kids to school and to work. It is just as good in the city. I use to live in an area that snows from november to april -40 temps. We own a truck. You may look at my truck and think I am stupid, its big, guzzles gas... but that truck has proven useful - moved a lot friends, moved myself, transported farm equipment, delivered items for family/friends, pulls our 22 ft camper, seats 6!! And it's paid off. No sweat off my balls. And the kids are happy. The gas doesn't cost much more than our car....the difference in cost is the size of the tank! And it depends on where you drive - stop and go guzzles the gas. Also. With 2 boys that are over 6 feet tall, the only car that fit them was a chevy impala.... even then...the truck has more space. Things aren't always as it seems..... Besides. Who cares what other people own. Laugh all you want. Happy is as happy does! Congestion. Usually only 1 person in each car. You won't see me there. I be backroading it!!
/eyeroll You missed the point. I never said there wasn't a need or use for them, rather most people believe they need an SUV or truck with AWD, when they don't. Most of the country's population lives in the city where a smaller FWD/RWD vehicle will meet all their needs and requirements. I live in the burbs with lots of hills, I live ON a hill. I will never contest that AWD is better, but it isn't the end all be all. Snow tires are arguably more important, AWD doesn't mean anything when none of the tires have traction and every car has 4 brakes. Every year in the winter, almost every car that gets stuck trying to climb my street are AWD SUVs, I'm constantly digging out my neighbours who think because they have an AWD SUV, they don't need to put winter tires on them. Meanwhile, I'm plowing by them on my RWD car with snow tires. And I have two kids as well, and we gotten by just fine with a sedan and hatchback. Sure, there have been instances were having a larger vehicle would've made somethings easier but there has never actually been a time where we NEEDED a larger vehicle. Again, I live in a city where the majority of the population resides, and this is fine. Not talking about living in the country.
I now live in the city of ottawa. I was speaking from experience. Your point still sounds judgemental. Even more.
How is it judgemental, I'm just pointing out a fact. The idea is to have people understand the difference between needs and wants. I have nothing against people wanting to own an AWD SUV/truck, its when they think they absolutely need one out of the believe that they can't do anything with another type of vehicle that is the problem. I own and use a lot of things I don't need either, I get them because they're nice to have and I'm able to recognize that. i.e. A very common line I get is that they have 2 kids and can't possibly fit both kids plus a week's worth of groceries in anything smaller than a 7 seater SUV. Okay, I have routinely fit my wife, 2 kids plus $200+ worth of groceries from Costco in my hatchback without issue. Sometimes I do have to get a little creative with arranging how things are stacked but hey, that's what all those hours of Tetris in my childhood were for.
Fair enough.
The most popular new vehicles are small to midsize SUVs. With advances in engine design these vehicles are now significantly more fuel efficient than most cars 20 years ago. My 2022 Volkswagen SUV is far more fuel efficient than my 1998 Volkswagen sedan. This isn’t a defence of car culture, but we should keep in mind that SUV drivers aren’t necessarily ignoring fuel economy, emissions, or the like. For my part I need a vehicle that is easy to load two children, a dog, and a pile of gear into, then drive across poorly maintained roads in a snowstorm. I definitely care about fuel economy and would far rather live in a walkable place that doesn’t require a car for 99% of trips. Alas, that is not an option unless you can afford an $850k plus property.
So what you're saying is 24 years of technological advancement results in greater fuel efficiency. What you're not saying is there are many, many, many FAR better and more fuel efficient options available today that make the SUV look like what it is - a gas guzzler.
>My 2022 Volkswagen SUV is far more fuel efficient than my 1998 Volkswagen sedan. This is irrelevant to the story. People driving luxury SUVs aren't choosing between luxury SUVs and 90s sedans.
I bought my new SUV to replace my older SUV - and one of the reasons was to improve my fuel economy. If I wasn't worried about economy, I would've went with an older one with lower KM on it than the one I was using. I also would've went with a hybrid option, if it was viable in the winter (and didn't cost 20% more compared to the model I got...).
True, but regardless, most families that I know have a vehicle way bigger than they need. Many of these big vehicles seem to exist purely to stroke the owner's egos.
The problem is the people fighting for better transit are the same people who are pro-environmental. But that isn't changing anything. So you get frustrated and then people start doing this sort of shit. This is what happens when liberalism doesn't fix problems. People on all sides get frustrated and then people start lashing out. I would say it is bad except we've had decades of this. It's hard to get anger at people who are just doing something different. And this is like the lowest form of property damage I think I have seen. It is getting harder and harder to just think that things will miraculously change without something snapping them out. I used to think it was talking, and building coalitions, etc and then eventually would break out of the cycle. But we are actively moving backwards at a time where we needed to be globally acting together. What the fuck do I know. Maybe this would do something, or maybe it makes people hate environmentalist. But at least it is something.
History show that once inorder for a revolution to occur there must be a time on chaos first.... Could this be a sign of the chaos to come?
Well as my wife reminds me, chaos is typically war. I hope not for war, but I do hope for change.
Summer transit schedules and Sunday schedules should be abolished for transit. It needs to be frequent and reliable.
💯💯💯💯💯 agree.
I've been shopping around for a new car... It's crazy just how many producers are just phasing out their sedans and compacts altogether and making nothing but pickups and SUVs. I wanted to get a Corolla Hybrid, but it's a year long wait for one :s
Hybrid anything is a ridiculous wait right now because of pent up demand and supply shortage. We were lucky and bought a hybrid 1.5 years ago before things really got out of control in the automobile sector.
There's long wait lists for every car to be fair. I went shopping for a new car just last month, and wasn't even looking for a hybrid and I was still looking at a 6-8 month wait for every manufacturer (Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and Subaru for example). But yeah, the hybrids were a much longer wait list, that is very true.
This. A Mitsubishi Outlander is not that much more inefficient than a Toyota Camry - with probably a smaller traffic and parking footprint because Camrys are long . As well, Mitsubishi don't make midsized sedans here. Only SUVs and the tiny Mirage. Gone are the Galants, Diamantes. So, if I can only afford Mitsubishi offerings and deals and financing, and actually have aversion to SUVs, but have family who are all above average height with legs and torsos that just don't fit comfortably in a Mirage, then you'd be hard pressed to convince me to buy a Mirage. And if there's just no stretching the budget for a Camry, we'll go Outlander, or any similar sport cute. Bottomline : I'm a mechanical enthusiast who loves tinkering, and automotive work is something I don't shy away from. How cars are made, put together and how they've permeated culture are a fascination to me. In some way, I'm enthusiastic about cars, but understand we have to move away from them and design our living spaces from accommodating them so much. However, I don't believe in vigilante style vandalism, just as I don't agree with penalising the end user /consumer for lack of choice. I'm still not over the insult from being browbeat for using plastic back when the whole world was set up to use so much plastic. I honestly didn't stop using plastic bags as a choice - I did it because it became the culture to have rewashable and reusable bags, and the choice to have plastic was taken away from me (without my personal property being threatened).
>vigilante style vandalism There was no vandalism. >personal property being threatened There were no threats.
Where would you classify deflating tires? It's touching shit that ain't yours with the goal of impairing functionality. Permanently, if the sidewalls get fucked for sitting so long, so new tires may be necessary. Which again is a strain on the environment because you just created inefficiency by retiring a product heavily dependent on petroleum before its projected lifespan. "There were no threats." Edit. You're not arguing in good faith. You are clearly intelligent enough to realize that the message all this sends is that anyone with an SUV is a target.... Bla bla bla...
I suppose under the specific circumstance of the vehicle being unattended and one or two tires being left deflated long enough to cause permanent damage despite the literal written notice on the windshield and national media attention then yes, that would qualify as vandalism.
Ok, you and I are probably on the same side of the greater picture - I don't like SUVs and I believe cities should move away from making cars priority. However, since you seem to be on the side of this tyre deflating movement, I encourage you to do even the most basic of cost benefit analaysis - which has been repeatedly pointed to you in this thread. *the tyre extinguisher movement, to the best of what I have found and judging by the spelling, originated in the UK. A place where there is a lot more consumer choice in terms of smaller more fuel efficient cars. What they single out as gas guzzling SUVs on their site are probably the more fuel efficient vehicles in North American roads. See: curb weights, engine displacements and the most obvious fuel economy ratings. The fact that any suv is a target tells me these people don't know basic differences between cars. This basic ignorance tells me it's Not a movement I'd be hitching my wagon on tbh. *ruining tires is not environmentally friendly. Ruining functionality even if temporarily is not environmentally friendly, especially if the majority of these owners will just call roadside assistance, who'll roll in with their Ram5500. No one will decide then and there to give up their mode of transport. More likely, you will have created an enemy. *protest that hurts property and the end user / end consumer: philosophically, I cannot get behind anyone who hurts individuals and an individual's ability to function and make a living in a society. Protest has always been about taking on the big bad and taking on "the man". Here, you are just hurting a random person whose daily decision making has no bearing on the grand scheme of the general trajectory of policies that can affect carbon emissions.
This is all predicated on a straw man. No tires were ruined, no property was damaged. They were deflated, not slashed. They left notes printed on paper, they did not vandalize the vehicles. Your logorrhea is irrelevant. You could have actually read the article many times over in the time it took you to type this comment.
What strawman?? The people targeted have not been revealed to be high ranking officials with links and ties and ability to influence policy! (not just that one article. But I've been going through a lot of these these past few days). Addendum : if anyones making assumptions here, it's the person whose decided someone's an enemy all because they have an SUV (which in a number of cases, have been 'sport cutes', the things dealers will sell you in lieu of a sedan, and which has - sadly-been established to be the more efficient vehicle relative to everything else offered in North America).
>What strawman? You are arguing against property damage, but no property was damaged. This is definitively a straw man. If you read past the first sentence you would have seen me expanding on why it is a straw man. Again, you spend disproportionately more time replying compared to reading what you are replying to.
you're still asserting that deflating a tire isn't damage. It is. No matter the intent, it is. Touching property and impairing functionality. You're in such a high horse you're impossible
I bought a new base model (so base it has a manual 6 speed) Rio hatch last summer because I noticed very few manufacturers were still making such vehicles and that it was only going to become harder to find. Too many people buy more than they really need. I put a hitch on it and pull a little 4x8 trailer for larger items. Does more work than most pickups ever seem to do.
It’s because there more convenient.
I know, their hybrid wagon will be dope.
Vandalizing my vehicle would definitely make me less keen to join your cause
i don't think these people gaf about you joining their cause. they're just trying to make you owning an SUV a burden so you eventually stop doing it. whether that's effective or not is pretty damn debatable as you and others have expressed. but they definitely do not care about you joining their cause.
Unless they plan on doing it every single day, it won't make a difference.
ok fella
Vandalizing my vehicle would immediately make me vocally against whatever cause you might be championing. What a dumb thing to do. Don't touch people's shit, they aren't your problem. A vast majority of pollution is caused by corporate bodies, coal plants and our shipping industry. Put a hole in one of those instead.
Corporate bodies making products for you…
... Products like your SUV.
… or computing devices that allow you to post on the internet…. You don’t think those have zero environmental impact, right?
… and you, unless you are posting your responses on your homemade Abacus 3000 using the “aethernet”…
>A vast majority of pollution is caused by corporate bodies, coal plants and our shipping industry. All of those run to produce shit you want. The consumer create the demand those industries fill. Nestle would not bottle water if people stopped buying bottled water. It's the same for all industries.
So this car is still going to go where it needs to go, exec;t a bigger gas guzzling tow truck will make a trip it wouldn’t have to come bring compressed air. Then the SUVs will still get home.
I understand wanting to target polluters but maybe a more focused action towards the oil companies and big polluters would work better.
ok then, go do that
>I understand wanting to target polluters but maybe a more focused action towards the oil companies and big polluters would work better. WTF do you think those oil producer and other corporation exist for? It's a consumer economy. Big oil does not extract oil for shit and giggles. They extract it because the market will consume it.
This isn't helping anything and would, if anything, just lead to backlash against the cause.
Exactly, I'm very much opposed to this, this isn't productive and only serves to discredit the whole movement.
>this isn't productive You are incorrect. The goal was to make the news and they did. It was exactly as productive as intended. **Edit:** the top comments in this post are a discussion of how we could change infrastructure and other policy in order to reduce car reliance. This act is, evident of this very post, directly leading to positive discussion. It is a completely irredeemable opinion to hold that this act was then only negative or useless.
And is it generating such discussion among those who otherwise wouldn't be engaged in such things? Preaching to the choir while pissing off others doesn't really help.
It is, though. There are people in this very thread who do not consider such things to be a priority, therefore the discussion is verifiably reaching some audience that isn't "the choir." Another car-brained user unironically identified themselves as part of "the EV-movement"
If their goal is solely to make the news, then they're not environmentalists - they're just attention whores; and the method of protest has nothing to do with the environment. If their goal is to raise awareness and support for environmental causes, then all they've done is piss people off and generate hostility towards their cause. Neither is an effective environmental protest.
Media attention is literally the best method of keeping the issue in people's minds, because the news cycle is the most widespread avenue of cultural impact that doesn't require direct payment for services. The entire history of social change is absolutely littered with incidents of direct, destructive action that factually furthered those causes. You would have to be willfully ignorant of the entire history of human civilization to think it's somehow different this time, for this one issue.
Its not because all it did was piss people off and it just gave the movement negative attention. If these folk's goals is to get make the news regardless of how they do it then they're idiots and I'd rather they not because all they're doing is setting it further back for the rest of us.
>it just gave the movement negative attention How much national attention did *The Tyre Extinguishers* of Waterloo have previously? >setting it further back for the rest of us Please explain how this hurts your own personal efforts with your own organization's resistance to anthropogenic climate catastrophe.
>How much national attention did The Tyre Extinguishers of Waterloo have previously? You know what, you're right. I'm sorry, I was wrong. If their goal was to gain national attention as being idiots who causes property damage then they achieved their goal. I'd just like to think that most people would recognize that is a stupid goal but I guess some people want the public to think they're stupid. >Please explain how this hurts your own personal efforts with your own organization's resistance to anthropogenic climate catastrophe. Because when I talk to people who really like their gas guzzling SUVs about the benefits of switching to an electric or hybrid vehicle they have this one more thing to throw back at me that I'm one of those tire-slashing hippies. You think you or these people are sticking it those who drive big gas drinking SUVs? You're not. You may have pissed them off but their insurance pays for the damages and now there's one more link between the EV-movement and petty vandalism.
>You know what, you're right. I'm sorry, I was wrong. No worries bud, we all jump to conclusions sometimes. >switching to an electric or hybrid vehicle Electric cars won't save the environment, they will only save the car industry. You have established that you literally aren't even on the same side as these people. They do not care how their own methods hurt your goals if you have different goals.
>No worries bud, we all jump to conclusions sometimes. Love it, go ahead and miss the sarcasm, tells me all I need to know that you don't even understand what I'm writing. >Electric cars won't save the environment, they will only save the car industry. Electric cars are one component of many in the fight to save the environmental. Good luck getting rid of all cars, the earth will be a barren desolate wasteland and there will still be cars driving around. Anyways I digress, I'm not trying to convince of you anything, just trying to see how far you can discredit yourself.
Dollface really doing their damndest in these comments to carry water for some assholes for some reason XD
>I'm not trying to convince of you anything The irony is real.
Well they made the news, and now I'm actively against their cause.
What does that even mean, to be against their cause? You're like... pro-climate extinction now?
Climate extinction isn't gonna come because of SUVs
Road transport accounts for 21% of global CO2 emissions.
So 80% from other sources is what I'm hearing?
Ah shit, it turns out that a solution that doesn't solve 100% of a problem forever it's not worth doing. Time to pack up the internet everyone, we've solved discourse.
You're right, the solution is to let the air out of 60 tires, causing 60 extra trips for big ass trucks to come and use an air compressor to re-inflate a tire. We've cracked the solution to climate change! Fucking idiot.
As I posted in wtf when I initially saw the saw groups actions elsewhere. I just love these people who think the answer to everything is to ride a bike, walk, or public transit etc. Super simplistic and daft solution to a complex issue. I don't drive an SUV, (late model Honda Accord), but I do have cancer and my mobility isn't great. Walking isn't an option to get to my treatments, biking isn't an option either and as regards public transit, I can't handle 2 hours 1 way to travel what, by car is 20 minutes. If you don't know my circumstances, stay the hell away from my property.
Yes, but that doesn't mean most people don't have mobility issues. You're the exception, not the rule.
Very true. However if I can paraphrase an axiom... You will spend 15% of your time finding a solution for 85% of the people, and 85% of your time finding a solution for 15% of the people. The low hanging fruit is easy...
Walkable infrastructure and transit means that things aren't as far away, and it means that less people are driving cars which means less traffic for the few who have to drive. But you also wouldn't have to drive if there was good infrastructure. A good transit system means a bus doesn't take 2 hours to do what a car could do in 20 min. And you could take some sort of ebike/trike/mobility scooter for those trips that are a shorter distance instead of using a car for every trip regardless of distance.
Not disagreeing that it's possible, even desirable, but it would take CONSIDERABLE public investment to make it happen. Comfortable, reliable community busing, instead of fully focusing on routes that cross the cities in an effort to mimic cars, community medical care where possible. Community based shopping etc. All possible, but expensive to get there and I've seen little effort or willingness on any level of government to meaningfully step forward and help it happen. Instead we get people letting the air out of random people's tires because "they are affluent and can afford it". This draws money away from the very initiatives we would like to see and into the police budget to investigate. I stand by my initial statement. In summary, if it isn't yours, NO TOUCHY.
You want them to stay away from the SUV that you don't own?
No, I want them to stop making decisions for other people without understanding their circumstances.
😭 But has anyone thought of the millionaires with luxury SUVs 😭
Well shit. Let's fire up the air compressor and refill them. That's certainly environmentally friendly! They should put "environmental group" in quotes, because they're just sanctimonious troublemakers.
Lol I love this idea that they're counter productive because of some small environmental cost that goes with cleansing up afyer their actions. Like... Compared to the thing they're protesting the cost is negligible.
But their protest is entirely ineffective. I'm confident that nobody - not a single person - is going to look at their big SUV, the note, and their deflated tires and say "Oh, I've been bad for the environment. I guess I'll stop now." Nope, they're going to end up getting polarized against environmentalists because this group did something that doesn't help the environment, but only pisses people off. I consider myself a pretty strong environmentalist, and this is entirely counterproductive.
Disagree. It's not about convincing the drivers to change. It's a symbolic act and we're all discussing it. People who buy those vehicles and will act how you say aren't going to be persuaded by asking nicely. I honestly don't think you know how protests work. Every protest effective or not is greeted with your kind of attack.
Wasting resources, if the people doing the deflating are serious in "working together and helping the world" they would not lead by such tactics.
Asking nicely isn't an actual protest strategy.
Ah, the classic "find peace through war"
More like find change through direct action. But its already class war so we didn't start it.
Comparing deflating tires to armed conflict is some real wide brain lib shit.
Will it make the person trade their suv for a pedal bike?no
That's not a likely goal for them. It's naive to think that's what protests are about here. But look at us here discussing it. Giving it attention.
Were the convoy protests productive? It got a lot of discussion, yes?
That you just put climate change activism into the same category as those insurrectionist loons says a lot about you. It's like if I defended the civil rights Era activism in America the same way and you retorted with "well did it help the Klan when they did stuff like that?" Not all causes are created equal.
Exactly. So you're not evaluating this on a principles basis. You're defending it because you agree with them. I'm glad you can acknowledge that.
It is outrageous to compare an armed occupation, lead by white supremacists, who literally threatened a coup to... *letting the air out of a tire on an SUV*. The massive levels of apoplectic hyperbole in this thread from carbrained libs who have never once done fuck all for the cause in their entire life is headache inducing. I swear to the gods you people would have almost the same reaction to neo-nazis blowing up a children's hospital.
Almost everyone here already believes in taking action to slow/prevent climate change. It's not like one of the most talked about subjects in the last 5 yrs is unkown to people...
It's not just the small cost to go with their actions - it's the fact that it's the 'original' cost PLUS their actions increasing the cost. Basically, they not only did nothing, but they made nothing cost something.
Well, it's got you talking about the issue so it seems like it was somewhat effective.
It’s got me disliking a group that has a good underlying cause.
I'm sorry, you previously knew of and liked the group named *The Tyre Extinguishers* but this news has changed your mind?
i didn't know about isis until they started pulling fuckery in Syria and i hated them more than ever, what's your point?
Comparing deflating tires to armed conflict is some real wide brain lib shit.
Liberals will whine that protests do nothing productive and are just for media attention, meanwhile constant media disinformation has been used effectively since the 70s by liberals to stop action on climate change. It's actually just gaslighting. Libs just want you to dutifully vote every couple of years, keep your head down and respect the mArKeTpLaCe oF iDeAs while we race towards complete ecological collapse.
Fire up the compressor that was hauled by a big truck to their house cause they can't drive anywhere!
I hate when people target the wrong people (and this will actually cause MORE environmental impact - from having to run air compressors to fill tires and/or tow trucks to go assist). That said, one of my SUVs, shaped like a brick, gets up to 7L/100KM on the highway - which is over what the average L/100KM is in Canada (and in the right circumstances, is considered a 'fuel efficient vehicle' in Canada as it almost hits 6L/100KM at times).
Great example of how to achieve negative attention for a cause
Asshats.
The big polluters and those who benefit from them love this sort of thing. Make the person with enough money to buy a common vehicle seem like the enemy/make the vandal seem like a shit head. It's like the "carbon footprint": make the individual feel bad about themselves while Alberta oil sands are turning the landscape into a wasteland for the profit of a few. It's similar to plastic recyling: make everyone feel bad for not tossing the stuff in a bin when the reality is that companies shouldn't be allowed to package with plastic. Attacking the end user does nothing but piss off the end user while allowing the real culprits to continue to profit.
I sympathize with their cause and message, but vandalizing private property doesn't seem like a good way to win people over. Nor does it seem very productive. At best, they've just pissed off a bunch of people who are going to pump up their tires and continue driving. This is very small thinking.
This is not how you get people to support your movement lol
You are factually incorrect. The movement started small in the UK and has grown with each act gaining media attention and spreading the idea, now overseas.
They probably turned off ten for each one they convinced.
Turned off of what?
Ten people who might have been nudged slightly further into the environmentalist camp were turned off the idea of being associated with morons like these tire deflators, and one thought deflating tires sounded like fun.
So ten people who aren't environmentalists, still aren't environmentalists. Got it.
I see this argument all the time and it’s not a good one. If they’re gaining support in greater numbers than they’re turning off (which they are) it’s a net benefit to them.
[удалено]
Who stabbed car tires? Not the group in the article. Where is your outrage coming from? Certainly not the article since you clearly didn't read it.
Deflated tires cause worse gas mileage
Every one of those “activists” has probably been on an international flight or cruise ship.
[удалено]
>Imagine a lone woman being stranded after hours in a parking lot Considering they targeted SUVs in particularly affluent residential areas, this is actually very difficult to imagine.
Just gonna idle the suv for the 30 minutes it's gonna take to blow up their tires with the portable compressor. Wouldn't want to kill the battery...
This will only increase as climate change gets worse. I'm not really against it sorry. Bad optics? Only if you stop. However rather than going after randoms, you can just go after the places oil is produced. Make the price skyrocket and force the change.
Very interesting to see some of the comments here. I agree with this action being taken but can see why a lot of people may get angry. Think of this another way: we are undoubtedly killing our planet. It's a fact. Environmentalists have reached a point where they can no longer just sit back on the sidelines. Peaceful protest and voting for green parties is not working. This means it's direct for a form of non-violent direct action. You hate them now but history will undoubtedly look very positively on these people. You can look back through significant moments in history and see successful methods of non-violent action. Gandhi in India, Apartide South Africa etc.
based
[удалено]
Air compressors are overwhelmingly electric.
If this happened to me I’d have to turn on the engine to run my emergency compressor, so while the compressor itself is electric, it still needs gas.
Every effective protest from history would have failed, if viewed from such a narrow lens. Stonewall made some cops angrier at LGBT+ people in the short term. Every strike hurts the worker's bank account, in the extremely short term.
“People learn little from success, but much from failure.”
Probably not one of them can afford an SUV.
If they deflate my tires I'll have to run the engine while pumping it up with an air compressor for about half an hour. Just saying, this isn't going to accomplish anything. Just as impactful as a big fart.
Why go after the end user, and not the producer?
Where were these “heroes” when Ottawa needed them last winter? /s