Comments on: Tyres on over 1000 SUVs deflated in Sweden

By: Uncle B

Uncle B — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:58:32 +0000

Vandalism does nothing for the cause – the environment, or the people in it, the environmentalists.
Write SUV owners letters, shame them in the press, use the net to raise awareness, promote environmentalism wherever and whenever possible, but keep it clean, intelligent and above board. We are right and we speak for the wellbeing of all when we speak out for the environment. We do not have to stoop to petty vandalism to get our point across. Organize in ‘green’ groups and use this energy to speak at PTA, boyscout or church meetings, hold rallies, help community events, form associations, lobby local governments, support other green organizations, orphanages,cancer walks,gay parades,march of dimes, dollars for Darfur, etc., but for the environment’s sake, keep it clean!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:34:57 +0000

I am visiting Stockholm at the moment and this morning found the tyre on my car had been punctures with a blade as did at least 8 other cars the same evening. I do not own a 4×4 and even if I did I am not sure I deserve to have my tyres punctured! Thanks….

By: Tyres of over 1000 SUVs deflated by activists « Hot WWW News

Tyres of over 1000 SUVs deflated by activists « Hot WWW News — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:37:29 +0000

[...] read more | digg story [...]

By: Treading lightly and driving a 4×4 « Musings from a Stonehead

Treading lightly and driving a 4×4 « Musings from a Stonehead — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:13:40 +0000

[...] Ecostreet published a post about Swedish activists deflating the tyres on more than 1,000 SUVs (and why do we [...]

By: Stonehead

Stonehead — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:18:22 +0000

Having found my name being mentioned here, I thought I’d drop in a few comments.

While, as Mel rightly points out, we do have a 4×4 on our working croft, I actually meet most of my transport needs with a trike and do about 50 miles a week in hilly terrain transporting children, groceries and materials for the croft.

The Land Rover is our sole car and gets my wife to and from work (no public transport, 20 miles to cover) as well as being used to tow a livestock trailer, move straw, animal feed, fencing, water and boulders, tow a harrow and various other jobs.

But thanks to the misguided spoutings of some eco-activists, people think it’s quite acceptable to spit on me and the car, to abuse me in petrol stations (baby-killer is the least of the insults I’ve had), and even to throw things at me.

Roger, 4×4s are not the only dangerous vehicle on the road. All cars can be dangerous – we had a VW Golf ram into our cottage last week at 50mph. If that had hit the boys and I on our trike, the consequences would have been just as deadly as being hit by a small 4×4.

Tracy, using a 4×4 on the school run can be appropriate. My wife is a teacher for a start and so uses the Land Rover to get to work. What else is she supposed to do – buy a second car so we can join the suburban masses who think two small cars are fine, but one ageing 4×4 is not?

Or what about someone who lives well out of town, in a country area and has to bring their children in during winter. A 4×4 may well be tbe best and safest way of doing that. The school bus that collects our boys can’t get through more than a dusting of snow or a bit of light ice, so it’s the 4×4 then.

The other thing you have to remember about 4×4s is that they span the spectrum from the small Fiat Panda 4×4 up to bug Porsche Cayennes and Range Rovers. There are also numerous medium cars from the likes of Skoda, Subaru and Audi that have 4×4 drive systems, but are most definitely not big off-roaders.

If you ban or target 4×4s, then you how do you discriminate between the intended targets (big 4×4s on the school run) and everyone else.

And talking about school runs, what’s more dangerous? A careful driver Subaru Legacy 4×4 or a distracted Mum driving her vast Ford Galaxy or Renault Grand Espace? Our LR Defender is often dwarfed by some of the vast MPVs that many families use – cars that often have 2.5-litre V6 engines.

Or what about white van man? There’s a lot less vision from one of those than from many 4×4s.

No, targeting 4×4s is a misguided and irrational hitting out at an easy target so as to avoid looking too closely at your own transport choices. There’s also a very large amount of jealousy at the perceived wealth and status of the 4×4 owner – which in our case is most certainly not true.

By: WWWednesday #7 « Half Pint Pixie

WWWednesday #7 « Half Pint Pixie — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:59:57 +0000

[...] The Indians of the Concrete Jungle – A Swedish group who have deflated the tires of over 1000 SUV’s across Sweden in order to [...]

By: Jazz

Jazz — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:02:05 +0000

So, it’s the SUVs that are the problem? To me, the problem is more than just SUVs. Letting the air out of tires is making the situation worse, because gas mileage (and emissions) are worse, with under-inflated tires. The problem comes down to the “I want EVERYTHING” mentality of modern life. And if we can’t have Everything, then we want the biggest, showiest whatever we can afford. The real problem with SUVs comes from the fact that in America, the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards set in place by the government only count cars. SUVs are classed as Trucks and thus are exempt. So we’ve got cars getting smaller and lighter, to meet fuel economy standards (then being driven by idiots, who do things to ruin the fuel economy) and frankly, someone with a 6′2 frame isn’t going to fit in a Mini. So, to get a vehicle that accomodates their height (or more commonly in America – their girth/weight) they get an SUV. Well, then the media points out that cars don’t fare so well in collisions with SUVs, so yuppie parents want their darling children to be safe, so they buy an SUV to be at “collision-survival” parity, so their precious offspring will survive. So everyone drives SUVs, environmentalists whine to the Government, and the government tightens down fuel standards even further, while still leaving the loophole in place for Trucks (SUVs). And then we throw in the testosterone factor. Men decide that they need to drive something “Big and Manly” (apparently because they’re afraid that in their undies, they’re not very big, or manly!)

The real solution to the SUV problem is to (1) bring Trucks & SUVs under the CAFE standards, and back the CAFE standards off enough that vehicles can be made safe enough to withstand a collision with an SUV.

Once that happens, then the growing trend towards everyone driving a SUV, even if they never need to go off-road, will start to reverse.

Vandalizing other people’s property doesn’t point out the real problem, irritates people, and frankly, is potentially endangering peoples lives.

Not the smartest way to win friends and influence people, now, is it?

By: Roger

Roger — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:51:21 +0000

Tracy’s comment is very important. We (society) get quickly critical about *immediate* consequences of behaviour but rarely the more far-reaching. This “eco-vandalism” is immediately quite rude and inconvenient to the SUV drivers and in the hypothetical situation involving flipping of a car could be immediately dangerous (although I think that was a bit ridiculous). However every time any of us choose to drive rather than walk we are choosing occupy public space with a dangerous vehicle. The consequences are huge – even obesity is linked, inter alia, to the fact that parents think that the streets are too dangerous for children to walk to school.
I don’t know whether I support the “Indians” because generally provocative action creates division and I reckon in the longer term I believe a softer Gandhi-esque approach pays dividends. I have to admit to being quite impressed though.

By: Tracy

Tracy — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:49:35 +0000

Something that is not covered in this blog post, but which is also relevant to the dangers that 4×4s pose to us is that a pedestrians are at a much larger risk of dying if they are hit by one of these vehicles. The risks are outlined in this BBC article.

I don’t have anything against 4×4 vehicles being used for valid reasons, but on the school run? It’s outrageous.

On the point of vandalism raised above, letting air out of tyres isn’t vandalism, it’s just an inconvenience.

By: Andy Cunningham

Andy Cunningham — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:20:28 +0000

This is just criminal damage. Unjustifiable criminal damage.

If I catch someone letting the tyres down on my car, it will be reported as vandalism. This is not funny. This is silly and dangerous, and the perpetrators need to be treated as the vandals and criminals they are.

4×4s do not damage the environment. Deal with it.