# The Tyre Extinguishers



## MrGrumpy (9 May 2022)

I see the self entitled anarchist group have been in town. They have hit Portobello last night . 30 cars/ SUVs had their tyres let down . There maybe trouble ahead one way or another keeping that up .


----------



## mustang1 (9 May 2022)

So they gotta buy new tyres. And those SUVs have pretty big chunky tyres too. Thus more environmental impact.


----------



## MrGrumpy (9 May 2022)

The term SUV applies to a wide range of cars these days. I do wonder what models they hit on their wee rampage . @rseholes the lot of them, will have the opposite effect of their aim.


----------



## cougie uk (9 May 2022)

mustang1 said:


> So they gotta buy new tyres. And those SUVs have pretty big chunky tyres too. Thus more environmental impact.



Don't know about your tyres but I can pump mine up again ? Nobody's said the tyres have been punctured have they ?


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

cougie uk said:


> Don't know about your tyres but I can pump mine up again ? Nobody's said the tyres have been punctured have they ?



Not sure the side walls will be too happy though, punctured or not . Still stand by the fact that this will not win hearts and minds .


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2022)

I am slightly concerned that my car might be seen as an SUV by these ill informed sheep. It's a Suzuki S-Cross, basically a hatchback which sits a little higher. Most economical car I've ever had, it's 1600cc petrol engine returns 50+ mpg, but of course will still be seen as a "gas guzzling SUV" by the misguided, ignorant copycat groups that will spring up, or just kids out for a bit if mischief. When will it escalate from the present method of deflation by interfering with the valve, to the express method of sticking a knife or screwdriver through the sidewall, thereby requiring replacement tyres?


----------



## T4tomo (10 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> I am slightly concerned that my car might be seen as an SUV by these ill informed sheep. It's a Suzuki S-Cross, basically a hatchback which sits a little higher. Most economical car I've ever had, it's 1600cc petrol engine returns 50+ mpg, but of course will still be seen as a "gas guzzling SUV" by the misguided, ignorant copycat groups that will spring up, or just kids out for a bit if mischief. When will it escalate from the present method of deflation by interfering with the valve, to the express method of sticking a knife or screwdriver through the sidewall, thereby requiring replacement tyres?



I think you'll be safe - true Chelsea Tractors will be the target


----------



## matticus (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Not sure the side walls will be too happy though, punctured or not . Still stand by the fact that* this will not win hearts and minds .*



Just to get our facts straight:
- what protests have you carried out that you feel WILL win hearts and minds?
- what protests by others have you shown support for (preferably in some medium that we can verify)?


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2022)

T4tomo said:


> I think you'll be safe - true Chelsea Tractors will be the target



I wish I shared your faith in the ability of these feckwits to tell the difference.
I reckon it would be quite difficult to find 30 true Chelsea tractors in Portobello, in one night.


----------



## cougie uk (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Not sure the side walls will be too happy though, punctured or not . Still stand by the fact that this will not win hearts and minds .



I doubt the owners will be won over but the inconvenience might change their minds.


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> I wish I shared your faith in the ability of these feckwits to tell the difference.
> I reckon it would be quite difficult to find 30 true Chelsea tractors in Portobello, in one night.



Their website provides a handy guide to how to spot an SUV https://tyreextinguishers.com/how-to-spot-an-suv

_Some common (but not universal) characteristics of SUVs are:_
_High ground clearance (greater distance between the ground and the chassis of the car)_​_Taller than most other cars_​_Coarser or larger tires than normal_​_Some common brands:_
_*Suzuki S-Cross* (these are especially evil, make sure you give it a right going over) _ ​
I think they are indeed a bunch of feckwits.


----------



## matticus (10 May 2022)

I've seen T-shirts for sale at their rallies:

Suzuki S-Cross - couldn't afford a 
real Chelsea Tractor, eh? Ha-ha!


----------



## tyred (10 May 2022)

Some day a Range Rover owning nutter with a bad tempter will witness one of these protesters letting their tyres down and said protester will likely get a slap in the mouth or worse.


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2022)

matticus said:


> I've seen T-shirts for sale at their rallies:
> 
> Suzuki S-Cross - couldn't afford a
> real Chelsea Tractor, eh? Ha-ha!



If I had a small todger, I would just have to do what most purchasers of penile extensions do: sign up to years of excruciating debt that leave you with no money to fuel the thing, followed by another debt of about 50% of the original purchase price. Not to mention being restricted in mileage per year, and being hooked into main dealer service plans.

No thanks, I'll stick with outright ownership of my 6 year old Suzuki with plenty room for a bike in the back .


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (10 May 2022)

Just had a read of their website and instructions

They get people to deflate the tyre by taking the cap off, putting a bean - like a green lentil - in it and putting the cap back on so it deflate but they can leave while it does

so - if you get targetted remember to check the cap before you put it back on


----------



## byegad (10 May 2022)

While I think their tactics are reprehensible in the extreme, they kind of have a point. 

At a visit to a nature reserve last week over 85% of the cars in the car park were SUVs. As I know most of the drivers I'd make an informed guess that no more than 2 of them have ever taken them off road. 

They weigh more, use more fuel, take up more room in carparks and on the road and are inherently more likely to do serious injury to a cyclist or pedestrian in the event of a collision than an ordinary car.


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2022)

byegad said:


> While I think their tactics are reprehensible in the extreme, they kind of have a point.
> 
> At a visit to a nature reserve last week over 85% of the cars in the car park were SUVs. As I know most of the drivers I'd make an informed guess that no more than 2 of them have ever taken them off road.
> 
> They weigh more, use more fuel, take up more room in carparks and on the road and are inherently more likely to do serious injury to a cyclist or pedestrian in the event of a collision than an ordinary car.



Yebbut you cannot put a price on the safety of their little cherrubs sat in the back with their built in entertainment system to keep them amused during the 10 minute drive to McD's drive thru.. And during the ensuing half hour queue for a burger 'n' chips. 

That seems to be the excuse for buying one ... elfin safety, innit? Perhaps if people learned how to drive safely in the first place? Prevention, rather than softening of the consequences of driving like a nobber.


----------



## matticus (10 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> Yebbut you cannot put a price on the safety of their little cherrubs sat in the back with their built in entertainment system to keep them amused during the 10 minute drive to McD's drive thru.. And during the ensuing half hour queue for a burger 'n' chips.
> 
> That seems to be the excuse for buying one ... elfin safety, innit? Perhaps if people learned how to drive safely in the first place? Prevention, rather than softening of the consequences of driving like a nobber.



And the kids on the outside are at much higher risk


----------



## matticus (10 May 2022)

tyred said:


> Some day a Range Rover owning nutter with a bad tempter will witness one of these protesters letting their tyres down and said protester will likely get a slap in the mouth or worse.



We've been down this road - well, in southern England anyway. "Working mum" drove hers into a seated protestor - found guilty in court.
But this has been all over the media, so I'm sure you are aware ...


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (10 May 2022)

matticus said:


> I've seen T-shirts for sale at their rallies:
> 
> Suzuki S-Cross - couldn't afford a
> real Chelsea Tractor, eh? Ha-ha!



Sort of mixed message there
You bought a lighter, smaller more efficient car rather than a bigger heavier, less efficient car

and they are laughing at you for doing it???


----------



## tyred (10 May 2022)

matticus said:


> We've been down this road - well, in southern England anyway. "Working mum" drove hers into a seated protestor - found guilty in court.
> But this has been all over the media, so I'm sure you are aware ...



I'm definitely not justifying any form of violence but if you interfere with other peoples property you run the risk of someone taking some form of revenge.


----------



## theclaud (10 May 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> They get people to deflate the tyre by taking the cap off, putting a bean - like a green lentil - in it and putting the cap back on so it deflate but they can leave while it does



Brilliant, isn't it?


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2022)

matticus said:


> We've been down this road - well, in southern England anyway. "Working mum" drove hers into a seated protestor - found guilty in court.
> But this has been all over the media, so I'm sure you are aware ...



Wasn't that a different group of nobbers though, protesting about insulation of buildings, or something? The ones who glue themselves to roads? What that has to do with building insulation, I'm not quite sure. Or I could be getting confused due to the sheer number of protesters with chips on their shoulders about whatever. All of which shows how ineffective these protests are at making lasting impressions on anyone other than those of a similar mindset to the protest groups.


----------



## theclaud (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Still stand by the fact that this will not win hearts and minds .



It's a shame this needs explaining, but the point is not to 'win hearts and minds', but to get SUVs off our urban roads.


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

theclaud said:


> It's a shame this needs explaining, but the point is not to 'win hearts and minds', but to get SUVs off our urban roads.



Sorry don’t share the same view, can be done other ways but as pointed out , if I caught them at mine I’m likely going to be in bother . However they wouldn’t do to again  . Selfish yes my choice yes my car choice suits my needs. Those needs may change in time though but at the moment I need it .


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

cougie uk said:


> I doubt the owners will be won over but the inconvenience might change their minds.



not effin likely . More chance of something not very nice happening .


----------



## matticus (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Sorry don’t share the same view, can be done other ways



But you haven't yet told us what these "other ways" are. Or are you against all forms of protest?


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

matticus said:


> But you haven't yet told us what these "other ways" are. Or are you against all forms of protest?



Don’t care but touching other peoples property is a no no .


----------



## theclaud (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Don’t care



Clearly. Suit yourself, but if you won't address the issue, you're gonna get LENTILLED.


----------



## theclaud (10 May 2022)

And here's why...

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/gl...2021-setting-back-efforts-to-reduce-emissions


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

theclaud said:


> And here's why...
> 
> https://www.iea.org/commentaries/gl...2021-setting-back-efforts-to-reduce-emissions



Interesting reading , still think I’m better running this SUV into the ground than spending more money another car or actually buying two cars to replace the existing car as there is nowt that can do it all !


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

theclaud said:


> Clearly. Suit yourself, but if you won't address the issue, you're gonna get LENTILLED.



And someone will get chinned but hey ho ! Or better still slapped about the face with their Jesus boots


----------



## Ian H (10 May 2022)

theclaud said:


> Brilliant, isn't it?



And entirely vegan. What's not to like.


----------



## Roseland triker (10 May 2022)

tyred said:


> Some day a Range Rover owning nutter with a bad tempter will witness one of these protesters letting their tyres down and said protester will likely get a slap in the mouth or worse.


Let's hope they don't try it on here as 90% of the village drive range rovers a bentyagas and there 100% nutty Nora's with the usual hungover bad temper...

X5 is common but mostly bently and range rover with the odd mahoosive Volvo thrown in


----------



## theclaud (10 May 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> 100% nutty Nora's with the usual hungover bad temper...



Sounds like an especially worthwhile act to stop them driving an SUV, if that's the case.


----------



## matticus (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Don’t care but touching other peoples property is a no no .



So would a hug be out of the question?


----------



## matticus (10 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> If I had a small todger, I would just have to do what most purchasers of penile extensions do: sign up to years of excruciating debt that leave you with no money to fuel the thing, followed by another debt of about 50% of the original purchase price. Not to mention being restricted in mileage per year, and being hooked into main dealer service plans.
> 
> No thanks, I'll stick with outright ownership of my 6 year old Suzuki with plenty room for a bike in the back .



 Fair play. I wish you - and your todger - many happy miles!


----------



## cougie uk (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> And someone will get chinned but hey ho ! Or better still slapped about the face with their Jesus boots



Didn't work out well for range rover mum did it.


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 May 2022)

Meanwhile at Tyre Extingushers HQ ...

Neil! Are those lentils South African? You complete and utter bastard!


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

cougie uk said:


> Didn't work out well for range rover mum did it.



Did she not try run one of them over ?


----------



## matticus (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Did she not try run one of them over ?



Excellent - someone IS paying attention!


----------



## theclaud (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Interesting reading , still think I’m better running this SUV into the ground than spending more money another car or actually buying two cars to replace the existing car as there is nowt that can do it all !



What is it you've got to do that's so unusual, important, and impossible to do without a mahoosive SUV, that everyone else has to bear the social, environmental and economic impacts on your behalf? Just out of interest...


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2022)

theclaud said:


> What is it you've got to do that's so unusual, important, and impossible to do without a mahoosive SUV, that everyone else has to bear the social, environmental and economic impacts on your behalf? Just out of interest...



Same could be said of "normal" cars, electric ones included. Oh, and we could extend it to anyone who flies anywhere. Or takes a bus or train for that matter. Anyone who buys a bicycle. And anyone who eats anything, or buys anything that has ever been transported anywhere, watches TV, puts on a light, wears clothes, takes a shower, flushes the toilet, or.... or..... or.....


----------



## PeteXXX (10 May 2022)

I wonder how many air miles these lentils clocked up just to end up in the tyre valve of car..


----------



## matticus (10 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> Same could be said of "normal" cars, electric ones included. Oh, and we could extend it to anyone who flies anywhere. Or takes a bus or train for that matter. Anyone who buys a bicycle. And *anyone who eats anything*, or buys anything that has ever been transported anywhere, watches TV, puts on a light, wears clothes, takes a shower, flushes the toilet, or.... or..... or.....



Basically your justification boils down to:
"But HE did it TOO sir!"

But just to show I've read your presentation; do you really think "anyone who eats anything" is doing as much harm as someone racking up urban* miles in a chelsea tractor? Does that really help your case, hmm?

(*I rode through Portobello last week. Appaling road surface, admittedly - but it ain't the serengheti, any modern car could deal with it. And every heavy vehicle is just making it worse. )


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

matticus said:


> Excellent - someone IS paying attention!



Failed miserably as well ! I wouldn’t make that mistake


----------



## theclaud (10 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> And anyone who eats anything



It was already quite a silly post by the time you got to this bit, but you have excelled yourself.


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

theclaud said:


> What is it you've got to do that's so unusual, important, and impossible to do without a mahoosive SUV, that everyone else has to bear the social, environmental and economic impacts on your behalf? Just out of interest...



Tow my horse box, take my caravan on tour . Can fit the family and both mothers in it. Saves taking two cars ! We don’t all live in the city and quite frankly I’m glad I don’t , so couldn’t care less .


----------



## theclaud (10 May 2022)

PeteXXX said:


> I wonder how many air miles these lentils clocked up just to end up in the tyre valve of car..



LOL.


----------



## Roseland triker (10 May 2022)

theclaud said:


> Sounds like an especially worthwhile act to stop them driving an SUV, if that's the case.


No not really I was merely pointing out that the white upper classes that own the village don't put up with stroppy retards trying to cause obstruction.


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2022)

So what you are both saying (@matticus and @theclaud ) is that *you* can pick and choose what environmentally damaging activities are ok, and what are not. Just as I thought. Much like all these eco warriors, it's a case of do as I say, not as I do. And the eco Police will decide and foist their misguided beliefs on the rest of us. Hence why I personally don't give a feck. Well, that, and the fact that one false move and Putin will make sure that all our efforts to save a few grammes of CO2 here and there count for nothing .
I think this thread is heading for the inevitable result, so just getting my tuppence worth in while it's still possible...


----------



## MrGrumpy (10 May 2022)

I was gonna mention Putin as well . It won’t matter a jot if we go down that route !


----------



## mustang1 (10 May 2022)

cougie uk said:


> Don't know about your tyres but I can pump mine up again ? Nobody's said the tyres have been punctured have they ?



Oh. My bad. I thought the tyres were slashed. 

N


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> I was gonna mention Putin as well . It won’t matter a jot if we go down that route !



And if it's not Putin, it'll be Kim wrong-Un. Maybe a big volcano, or a meteorite. Or Coronavirus 4, the real deal. Something is long overdue to reduce the human population, which is the REAL problem on our planet. Reducing CO2 is just tinkering with the issue.


----------



## Roseland triker (10 May 2022)

mustang1 said:


> Oh. My bad. I thought the tyres were slashed.
> 
> N


May as well be if you get off on to the motorway and it goes down slowly causing an accident endangering life.

It's only going to go one way and if they show up round here they won't be going anywhere else judging by opinion.


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2022)

matticus said:


> (*I rode through Portobello last week. Appaling road surface, admittedly - but it ain't the serengheti, any modern car could deal with it. And *every heavy vehicle* is just making it worse. )



Best put a stop to all those buses using the roads of Portobello and elsewhere then. Delivery vans, lorries, and anything bigger than a Nissan Note while we're at it. Electric cars too, given that they are about 30% heavier than their ICE equivalent. Ambulances, fire engines; ban the lot of them in case they damage the road surface!

Perhaps it would be a good idea to build roads in such a manner that they are fit for purpose, the way the roads department of the local council used to do prior to the contracts being given to the cheapest bidder.


----------



## DRM (10 May 2022)

Not being funny, but there’s a real chance that some of these SUV damaging antics could see the tyre extinguisher getting beaten to a pulp/disappear of the face of the earth with some of the criminals that run flash expensive SUV’s, people have been shot for less, mess with that G-Wagen/Range Rover at your peril


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 May 2022)

Are you saying the situation could mushroom in Portobello?


----------



## Cerdic (10 May 2022)

DRM said:


> Not being funny, but there’s a real chance that some of these SUV damaging antics could see the tyre extinguisher getting beaten to a pulp/disappear of the face of the earth with some of the criminals that run flash expensive SUV’s, people have been shot for less, mess with that G-Wagen/Range Rover at your peril



This was my first thought. Maybe it’s just the area I live in, but most Range Rovers and the like are driven by drug dealers. Not the sort of people you want catching you fiddling with their motor…


----------



## Cerdic (10 May 2022)

There seems to be a bit of muddled thinking here.

How are we defining an ‘SUV’?

In Britain, we used to call these vehicles ‘off-roaders’ or ‘4x4s’. The term SUV came from America and was short for sports utility vehicle, the sort of thing you could take into the wilderness to hunt bears. These cars had body-on-chassis designs and all-wheel drive. They were big, heavy, and thirsty and a genuine target for the environmentally minded unless you really needed their capabilities - so farmers, basically!

These days all sorts of cars get called SUVs. Most of them are unitary construction and two-wheel drive. They are basically ordinary cars that are a bit taller. Weight, fuel consumption, and road footprint are very similar to traditional saloons and hatchbacks. There is absolutely no logical, technical reason for these cars to be singled out on environmental grounds.

There are, however, still enormous SUVs with massive engines out there. Stuff like Range Rovers and G Wagens and the like. The lentil tyre people seem to be misinformed. One of the ‘evil SUVs’ in their photos appeared to be a Toyota RAV4 with, very probably, a hybrid powertrain that is more fuel efficient than you’re average Ford Fiesta…


----------



## DRM (10 May 2022)

Cerdic said:


> This was my first thought. Maybe it’s just the area I live in, but most Range Rovers and the like are driven by drug dealers. Not the sort of people you want catching you fiddling with their motor…



Got to agree, the AMG Merc G-Wagen starts at £164,500 rising to £182,200, the Range Rover SVR starts at £99,500, when you see young men driving these things, they aren’t getting that income from the take away and used car sales outlet that they run, if you catch my drift,


----------



## matticus (11 May 2022)

Cerdic said:


> There are, however, still enormous SUVs with massive engines out there. Stuff like Range Rovers and G Wagens and the like. The lentil tyre people seem to be misinformed.



So we agree - there is a problem out there, on your streets, on my streets.
I haven't spoke to any lentil people, so don't know how well informed they are; but one fact is that they are actually doing something about this problem. And risking death-by-drug-dealer in the process.

What are us posters on this thread doing about it? Yourself? Mrgrumpy? Brandane?


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2022)

matticus said:


> Brandane?



I'm doing nothing. Why would I?
I believe in personal choice, as long as it's within the law. If people can afford to buy and run the todger extensions, they have that choice. It's no-one else's place to make the decision for them, or embark on a form of terrorism to make the decision uncomfortable. 

It is going down a very dangerous path if we start protesting about lawful things that we don't approve of. I can think of several, personally, but we live and let live.


----------



## matticus (11 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> It's no-one else's place to make the decision for them, or embark on a form of *terrorism *to make the decision uncomfortable.
> 
> It is going down a very dangerous path if we start protesting about lawful things that we don't approve of. I can think of several, personally, but we live and let live.


"terrorism"?!? Blimey, but anyway ...

The point here is that issues around the environment are ENTIRELY about breaking of the "live and let live" principle. Laws are imperfect, they cannot keep up with every form of selfish idiocy we invent, especially around vehicle use. SUVs aren't illegal, because some people deliver pianos every day to disabled aunts. In fact if you have enough money to burn, you can do untold damage to the environment even at local level - the environment in which we all live - without breaking any laws.

You'll probably find that most significant protests across history were about things that weren't illegal. Heard of slavery?


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2022)

matticus said:


> You'll probably find that most significant protests across history were about things that weren't illegal. Heard of slavery?



Heard of car drivers who don't like cyclists being on the road? 
Yet we, myself included, rightly bleat on about the law and the highway code and how we are legally entitled to be on the road. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but the same applies to every other road user out there, assuming they are legal. 
It's not your place to decide where the line is drawn between what is an acceptable level of damage to the environment, and what is not. We ALL damage the environment to some extent, cyclists included.


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Are you saying the situation could mushroom in Portobello?



LOL Dogtrousers, I never had you down as such a fungi....


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

matticus said:


> So we agree - there is a problem out there, on your streets, on my streets.
> I haven't spoke to any lentil people, so don't know how well informed they are; but one fact is that they are actually doing something about this problem. And risking death-by-drug-dealer in the process.
> 
> What are us posters on this thread doing about it? Yourself? Mrgrumpy? Brandane?



I’m doing my bit or was in other ways to reduce my carbon foot print . Whether you agree that’s enough I don’t really care. My choice of vehicle is my choice. I’ll make adjustments elsewhere to offset. Until such times that I cannot buy said type of vehicle.
Manufacturers are already swapping over to electric. Even JLR have been in development with electric and I think all their new SUVs from a certain date will be electric. Could be 2025? 

On the subject my original post , Do you agree with the course of action they are taking ? Do you think it’s fair game ? You do know that after they have finished with SUVs they will decide on the next in line target ? Geez might even start targeting houses whom haven’t swapped over to heat source pumps or something ??!! Jokes aside if they find this action does work , what’s to stop them doing something else even more radical ?


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

Personally, I'd worry about safety aspects. What happens if the lentil fails after only reducing the tyre pressure and someone drives off with a partially deflated tyre. Would that be safe? I know nothing about cars so I don't know. Call me Mr Risk Assessment.

Putting leaflets under their windscreen wipers, while it involves "touching other people's property" which some people don't like, I would see as perfectly fair game. If a bit ineffectual.

That said, if someone were to use concentrated sulphuric acid to spray all the cars that park in the bike lane on South Eden Park Road I'd applaud such an action. Parking in the bike lane doesn't actually inconvenience me much, I just ride round them, but it really gets on my wick so they must all die.


----------



## Ian H (11 May 2022)

We seem to have come to an argument between tyre extinguishers and nit-pickers.


----------



## matticus (11 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> On the subject my original post



Yeah about that. From 4 pages back, care to address this? ->


MrGrumpy said:


> Still stand by the fact that* this will not win hearts and minds* .





matticus said:


> Just to get our facts straight:
> - what protests have you carried out that you feel WILL win hearts and minds?
> - what protests by others have you shown support for (preferably in some medium that we can verify)?


Seems only polite to respond, before launching yet more rhetoric.


----------



## Phaeton (11 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Personally, I'd worry about safety aspects. What happens if the lentil fails after only reducing the tyre pressure and someone drives off with a partially deflated tyre. Would that be safe? I know nothing about cars so I don't know. Call me Mr Risk Assessment.



Walking back home after picking my granddaughter up from school the other day I heard the familiar thump, thump, thump, thump of a car being driven on a flat tyre & sure enough a VW T5 went passed doing about 30mph with the rear tyre completely flat but the driver was either ignorant of the fact or simply didn't care, which was surprising as the aftermarket wheels looked very expensive.


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

matticus said:


> Yeah about that. From 4 pages back, care to address this? ->
> 
> 
> 
> Seems only polite to respond, before launching yet more rhetoric.



So you support such action and the potential consequences? I don’t that’s obvious. My protests in the past usually have involved spending my money elsewhere or long time ago even withdrawing my labour and manning a picket line . However I would never damage or touch someone else’s property or get involved in such things .


----------



## Stephenite (11 May 2022)

I think there's an opportunity going to waste here. As long as you have a Schrader valve on your pump.

"Pump your tyres up, mister?! 10 bob!"


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

Air compressor FTW here


----------



## matticus (11 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> So you support such action and the potential consequences? I don’t that’s obvious. My protests in the past usually have involved spending my money elsewhere or long time ago even withdrawing my labour and manning a picket line



How is that going to help with this issue? I ask again: how do YOU propose to "win over hearts and minds" [your phrase, not mine]? What protests have you seen that have your support?

"_So you support such action and the potential consequences? _"
If by consequences you mean violence against the protestors, and possible arrest for damages: well, yes, I support the protestors in taking that risk..
Just as the suffragettes risked arrest and significant injury in their protests.
And I support their cause - at least until you show me the _better way_ [assuming it exists]. I don't regard shrugging, and saying "well some tiny minority of people need these things" cuts the mustard.


----------



## DRHysted (11 May 2022)

How do these people know for what purpose these vehicles are being used? How do they know they aren’t targeting a community first responder (these are voluntary roles using their own vehicles)?
These threads were people tell others what their needs are always reminds me of the time I was informed at work I didn’t need a large vehicle as they only ever see me driving it alone, I “should have a Smart car”. I did take the time to enlighten them, but it enlightened me to the fact we can never tell someone what they need without knowing ALL their requirements. 
As a side note my current estate car has a larger footprint than my old 4x4.


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

DRHysted said:


> How do these people know for what purpose these vehicles are being used? How do they know they aren’t targeting a community first responder (these are voluntary roles using their own vehicles)?


In Portobello? I'm trying to imagine an incident in Portobello requiring offroad capability.

As an aside I used to know a (professional) paramedic who used her own car to attend incidents - in East London. She had one of those diddy two seater things. I can't remember what they're called.


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> I can't remember what they're called



A motorbike? 
Or perhaps a Toyota iQ.


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> A motorbike?
> Or perhaps a *Toyota iQ.*



Something like that. But it doesn't really matter


----------



## DRHysted (11 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> In Portobello? I'm trying to imagine an incident in Portobello requiring offroad capability.
> 
> As an aside I used to know a (professional) paramedic who used her own car to attend incidents - in East London. She had one of those diddy two seater things. I can't remember what they're called.



Personally I used my 4x4 more for towing than off-road, although it was fully equipped for off-road use and was used off-road on occasions. If it wasn’t for the 20mpg I’d still have the 4x4 as it was a much better and safer tow vehicle than my current estate (which drops to 29mpg when towing). 
To rephrase what I was trying to put across earlier, without knowing a person’s actual requirements you are speculating what you think they should have, which leads to mistakes. 
Without actually knowing what a community first responder uses their vehicle for when they are not volunteering, means you do not know what type of vehicle they need. Sabotaging such a vehicle could risk a life, not a risk I’m willing to take.


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

DRHysted said:


> Personally I used my 4x4 more for towing than off-road, although it was fully equipped for off-road use and was used off-road on occasions. If it wasn’t for the 20mpg I’d still have the 4x4 as it was a much better and safer tow vehicle than my current estate (which drops to 29mpg when towing).
> To rephrase what I was trying to put across earlier, without knowing a person’s actual requirements you are speculating what you think they should have, which leads to mistakes.
> Without actually knowing what a community first responder uses their vehicle for when they are not volunteering, means you do not know what type of vehicle they need. Sabotaging such a vehicle could risk a life, not a risk I’m willing to take.


Rubbish. I'm not speculating at all.


----------



## Phaeton (11 May 2022)

DRHysted said:


> How do these people know for what purpose these vehicles are being used? How do they know they aren’t targeting a community first responder (these are voluntary roles using their own vehicles)?
> These threads were people tell others what their needs are always reminds me of the time I was informed at work I didn’t need a large vehicle as they only ever see me driving it alone, I “should have a Smart car”. I did take the time to enlighten them, but it enlightened me to the fact we can never tell someone what they need without knowing ALL their requirements.
> As a side note my current estate car has a larger footprint than my old 4x4.



Although I understand your point, you have to think about the society that we are developing that thinks it's acceptable to drive a permanent 4WD 5.0L 542bhp Supercharged V8 Range Rover capable of 0-60 in 4.4 seconds around the streets of London in the first place at 16 mpg which I think is optimistic. Or for that matter why these types of vehicle are even being produced.


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

matticus said:


> "_So you support such action and the potential consequences? _"
> If by consequences you mean violence against the protestors, and possible arrest for damages: well, yes, I support the protestors in taking that risk..
> Just as the suffragettes risked arrest and significant injury in their protests.
> And I support their cause - at least until you show me the _better way_ [assuming it exists]. I don't regard shrugging, and saying "well some tiny minority of people need these things" cuts the mustard.



Suffragettes lol wow that is a stretch is it not  .


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Although I understand your point, you have to think about the society that we are developing that thinks it's acceptable to drive a permanent 4WD 5.0L 542bhp Supercharged V8 Range Rover capable of 0-60 in 4.4 seconds around the streets of London in the first place at 16 mpg which I think is optimistic. Or for that matter why these types of vehicle are even being produced.



There are not many driving those though , not round my way and any I’ve looked at for sale have very low mileage , no wonder ! I see more Merc AMG 63 Classes or E classes , not SUVs btw


----------



## matticus (11 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Suffragettes lol wow that is a stretch is it not  .





Brandane said:


> It's no-one else's place to make the decision for them, or embark on a form of *terrorism *to make the decision uncomfortable.


----------



## Ian H (11 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Suffragettes lol wow that is a stretch is it not  .



It is if you believe that climate change is trivial.


----------



## DRHysted (11 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Although I understand your point, you have to think about the society that we are developing that thinks it's acceptable to drive a permanent 4WD 5.0L 542bhp Supercharged V8 Range Rover capable of 0-60 in 4.4 seconds around the streets of London in the first place at 16 mpg which I think is optimistic. Or for that matter why these types of vehicle are even being produced.



My old 4x4 was a 2litre diesel and would’ve been one of their targets. My estate is a 2litre diesel and (for now) isn’t on their hit list. 
Really glad I don’t live in London.


----------



## DRHysted (11 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Rubbish. I'm not speculating at all.



Really, are you omnipresent then?


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

Ian H said:


> It is if you believe that climate change is trivial.



And playing about with tyres on peoples vehicles , the only contact with the road is trivial as well ? Really , why don’t they just cut the brake pipes whilst in there ?


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

DRHysted said:


> Really, are you omnipresent then?



 Nope, I'm not that either.


----------



## Phaeton (11 May 2022)

DRHysted said:


> Really glad I don’t live in London.


Me too, detest the place,


----------



## matticus (11 May 2022)

DRHysted said:


> Really, are you omnipresent then?



He once claimed to "omnipotent", but it turned out to be a typo.


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> . She had one of those diddy two seater things. I can't remember what they're called.



They're called sensible....


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Or for that matter why these types of vehicle are even being produced.


This^^^
Electric versions now coming c...the aerodynamics of a brick married to the weight of a small house, it seems stupid to me to build this in electric format. Aerodynamics and low weight will save the planet faster than ego and prestige.


----------



## Phaeton (11 May 2022)

Fab Foodie said:


> They're called sensible....



That depends on what they are being used for? I very much doubt they are sensible to try to tow our horse trailer with, that is apart from it being illegal, but then again we don't live in the centre of the universe


----------



## Phaeton (11 May 2022)

Fab Foodie said:


> This^^^
> Electric versions now coming c...the aerodynamics of a brick married to the weight of a small house, it seems stupid to me to build this in electric format. Aerodynamics and low weight will save the planet faster than ego and prestige.



Electric is not the answer, if anything it's a distraction.


----------



## matticus (11 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> And playing about with tyres on peoples vehicles , the only contact with the road is trivial as well ? Really , why don’t they just cut the brake pipes whilst in there ?



Not likely to win hearts and minds, is it?


----------



## T4tomo (11 May 2022)

DRHysted said:


> As a side note my current estate car has a larger footprint than my old 4x4.



My car leaves tyre tracks not footprints?


----------



## Phaeton (11 May 2022)

T4tomo said:


> My car leaves tyre tracks not footprints?



You have the wrong type of tyres then 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRmdssX9l2g


----------



## DRHysted (11 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> That depends on what they are being used for? I very much doubt they are sensible to try to tow our horse trailer with, that is apart from it being illegal, but then again we don't live in the centre of the universe



This is the point that righteous people will never understand, it’s also the time I leave them to their speculation.


----------



## matticus (11 May 2022)

DRHysted said:


> This is the point that righteous people will never understand



Interesting that you use "righteous" to imply negative aspects. May say a lot about you, but I'm only speculating ...


----------



## Roseland triker (11 May 2022)

This still going?
Has anyone caught an offender tampering with a car yet?


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> *That depends on what they are being used for?* I very much doubt they are sensible to try to tow our horse trailer with, that is apart from it being illegal, but then again we don't live in the centre of the universe


For a first responder (paramedic) in Central London - that was the context in which it was mentioned. No mention of horses at all.


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> That depends on what they are being used for? I very much doubt they are sensible to try to tow our horse trailer with, that is apart from it being illegal, but then again we don't live in the centre of the universe



Of course, but the point is that many people have cars far larger/powerful than they really need.


----------



## simongt (11 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Coarser or larger tires than normal


Interesting description. Saw a blinged Range Rover recently with very low profile tyres with a tread that wouldn't be out of place in Formula One - !


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 May 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Electric is not the answer, if anything it's a distraction.



Maybe, but it's the direction of travel (sic) at the mo....


----------



## matticus (11 May 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> This still going?



well, SUV owners are still moaning about the threat of "terrorism" hanging over them.


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

simongt said:


> Interesting description. Saw a blinged Range Rover recently with very low profile tyres with a tread that wouldn't be out of place in Formula One - !



Obviously a cunning plan to confuse the lentil-wielding terrorists.


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2022)

DRHysted said:


> Really glad I don’t live in London.



Or Portobello, as per OP... 
I assumed the OP was referring to Edinburgh.


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> Or Portobello, as per OP...
> I assumed the OP was referring to Edinburgh.


Interesting. I was assuming London. Which was it?


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Interesting. I was assuming London. Which was it?



I've never heard of Portobello in London. Portobello ROAD, London, yes.
Maybe we should ask @MrGrumpy .


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> I've never heard of Portobello in London. Portobello ROAD, London, yes.
> Maybe we should ask @MrGrumpy .



Portobello Edinburgh


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> I've never heard of Portobello in London. Portobello ROAD, London, yes.
> Maybe we should ask @MrGrumpy .



The area round Portobello Market gets called "Portobello" so I assumed that. But you're right, it's not really the proper name of the area, it's kind of Notting Hill I think.


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2022)

matticus said:


> well, SUV owners are still moaning about the threat of "terrorism" hanging over them.



If you're going to quote, at least do it in context. I said "a form of terrorism", which by definition it clearly is.
They are using intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Intimidation by letting peoples tyres down and thus trying to dissuade them from ownership of SUV's. It may be low level terrorism, but terrorism it is.


----------



## Jody (11 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Personally, I'd worry about safety aspects. What happens if the lentil fails after only reducing the tyre pressure and someone drives off with a partially deflated tyre. Would that be safe? I know nothing about cars so I don't know. Call me Mr Risk Assessment



That's what causes blow outs at speed. Constant flexing of the sidewall due to low pressure.


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

Fab Foodie said:


> This^^^
> Electric versions now coming c...the aerodynamics of a brick married to the weight of a small house, it seems stupid to me to build this in electric format. Aerodynamics and low weight will save the planet faster than ego and prestige.



Won’t matter too much after all it’s electric


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

Fab Foodie said:


> Of course, but the point is that many people have cars far larger/powerful than they really need.



Houses, bikes , sailing boats . If they want to spend their money why not and if we move to electric then what does it matter


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Houses, bikes , sailing boats . If they want to spend their money why not and *if we move to electric then what does it matter*


Electricity doesn't grow on trees you know. Nor do the lanthanides that make the magnets for the motors, or the plastics used in manufatureand so on.

These people are nothing more than ... ahem, excuse me a moment ... (carefully moves foolishly expensive bike out of view) ... as I was saying, comrades ...


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Won’t matter too much after all it’s electric



You're not getting this 'resources' bit are you....


----------



## Roseland triker (11 May 2022)

Do you normally quote other people's posts changing them to suit your opinion?


----------



## Poacher (11 May 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Do you normally quote other people's posts changing them to suit your opinion?



?


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Houses



Houses. Now there's a thing. How long before misguided eco-terrorists get all shouty about people who buy houses that are too big for them. Two people in a 3 bedroom house? Selfish. Think of the extra building materials, energy to heat it, the space it occupies.... Let's go round and protest. And that garden, it's far too big. Who actually NEEDS a garden anyway? 
Where does it all end?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (11 May 2022)

Are that actions of these tyreorrists responsible for all the increases in inflation?


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Are that actions of these tyreorrists responsible for all the increases in inflation?



Deflation would be more likely, surely?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (11 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> Deflation would be more likely, surely?



Ah, but you have to pump them back up again. Presumably with an electric pump, and then rush because you're late etc...


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

Fab Foodie said:


> You're not getting this 'resources' bit are you....



I do , I really do  my 4x4 uses all the resources I need


----------



## ClichéGuevara (11 May 2022)

I can't believe that the actions of the eco warriors have actually converted anyone to their cause. I can believe that they've driven a significant number away from it.

I've seen some claim that at least it gets people talking about it, but generally, that's after a TV interview with one of the ever changing spokes people, that make absolute fools of themselves, and it is their ignorance and idiocy that's being talked about.


----------



## theclaud (11 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Tow my horse box, take my caravan on tour . Can fit the family and both mothers in it. Saves taking two cars ! We don’t all live in the city and quite frankly I’m glad I don’t , so couldn’t care less .


You've said what you want to do, but ignored the other bit about why everyone else should bear the costs.


----------



## MrGrumpy (11 May 2022)

Who is everyone else  ? What Cost ? I pay plenty trust me ? My gas guzzler will be replaced in good time , and probably for something a bit more fuel efficient however I’ll decide that nobody else !


----------



## matticus (12 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I've seen some claim that at least it gets people talking about it,



Have you seen any significant causes move forward _without _people talking about them? Without publicity?
(In fact I'd probably suggest nothing significant has been changed in society without somebody grumbling about it. Drink-driving, smoking in pubs, speed limits, racial discrimination laws ... the list is probably longer than this thread ...


----------



## ClichéGuevara (12 May 2022)

matticus said:


> Have you seen any significant causes move forward _without _people talking about them? Without publicity?
> (In fact I'd probably suggest nothing significant has been changed in society without somebody grumbling about it. Drink-driving, smoking in pubs, speed limits, racial discrimination laws ... the list is probably longer than this thread ...



The point being, on those examples, they talked of the issues, on the eco ones, they talk about silly people being anti-social. They're actually working to the benefit of their opponents.


----------



## matticus (12 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> The point being, on those examples, they talked of the issues, on the eco ones, they talk about silly people being anti-social. They're actually working to the benefit of their opponents.



So you do support eco protests in general, yeah?
How about SUV < or other anti-social category> protests?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (12 May 2022)

matticus said:


> So you do support eco protests in general, yeah?
> How about SUV < or other anti-social category> protests?



That's a reasonable example of a non sequitur. I made no comment either way on that, I'm simply pointing out that the current eco tactics not only fail to meet their goals, they are counter productive.


----------



## matticus (12 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I made no comment either way on that,



... which is in itself, rather interesting.

It's fair to say I've noticed a pattern in anti-protest critics.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (12 May 2022)

matticus said:


> ... which is in itself, rather interesting.
> 
> It's fair to say I've noticed a pattern in anti-protest critics.



Obviously, you're quite at liberty to try to make assumptions based on your own prejudice and assumptions and then argue with yourself on those you make, but I'd be grateful if you didn't bother me with them. Ta. 

I'll have a look back later to see if you're still trying to change the subject, or if you've actually decided to comment on the actual point I made.


----------



## matticus (12 May 2022)

Sorry cliché, but there is a prior point.
You see this has come up quite a lot already. e.g.


MrGrumpy said:


> Still stand by the fact that this will not win hearts and minds .


(back on page 1.)

Do you share MrGrumpy's position? Forgive me if I'm wrong to lump you together.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (12 May 2022)

matticus said:


> Sorry cliché, but there is a prior point.
> You see this has come up quite a lot already. e.g.
> 
> (back on page 1.)
> ...



You've yet to express your view of my comment.


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> You've yet to express your view of my comment.



It was great!


----------



## matticus (12 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> You've yet to express your view of my comment.



I found it great _and _incisive.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (12 May 2022)

matticus said:


> I found it great _and _incisive.



Okay. As I said earlier, I'll look back and see if you decide to actually engage in a conversation rather than just replying with rather dull and obvious diversions fueled by ignorance based assumptions. I'll then decide if it's worth my while responding.


----------



## matticus (12 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> rather than just replying with* rather dull*


Now that REALLY hurts


----------



## MrGrumpy (12 May 2022)

Threads run it’s course I think , besides got to go wash my SUV before we pack it up with suitcases and stuff for the airport run before we fly out to the Med for our cruise


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 May 2022)

Quitter


----------



## Profpointy (12 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> So what you are both saying (@matticus and @theclaud ) is that *you* can pick and choose what environmentally damaging activities are ok, and what are not. Just as I thought. Much like all these eco warriors, it's a case of do as I say, not as I do. And the eco Police will decide and foist their misguided beliefs on the rest of us. Hence why I personally don't give a feck. Well, that, and the fact that one false move and Putin will make sure that all our efforts to save a few grammes of CO2 here and there count for nothing .
> I think this thread is heading for the inevitable result, so just getting my tuppence worth in while it's still possible...



That does sound like saying that because we can't be perfect it is fine to be bad. 

Everyone has to eat and live. Many of us may justify travel but there's a huge difference in the effect on others of catching the bus or using a modest economical car compared with a Bentley or v8 off roader.


----------



## matticus (12 May 2022)

MrGrumpy said:


> Threads run it’s course I think



Of course we're grateful for your guidance - without your wisdom and common sense, we'd have been stuck in here forever, wibbling away, worrying about how me might help our fellow man. Glad you're herding us back to your (mundane but useful) real lives.
But before we go, would you mind just addressing this simple post? You've had a couple of days now, and I didn't want to bother you but, well ... here you go:


----------



## theclaud (13 May 2022)

Cerdic said:


> There seems to be a bit of muddled thinking here.
> 
> How are we defining an ‘SUV’?
> 
> ...



'How on earth will the lentilistas recognise genuinely antisocial vehicle choices?!' bleat the SUV drivers. 

Meanwhile, in our communities...


----------



## icowden (13 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Their website provides a handy guide to how to spot an SUV https://tyreextinguishers.com/how-to-spot-an-suv
> I think they are indeed a bunch of feckwits.


They certainly don't seem very consistent with their thinking. They justify SUVs being a climate disaster:


> The increasing pace of SUV buying is cancelling out all the carbon savings from people switching to electric cars.


They talk about SUVs causing Air pollution.

But then on their page on "how to deflate tyre":-


> Hybrids and electric cars are fair game. We cannot electrify our way out of the climate crisis - there are not enough rare earth metals to replace everyone’s car and the mining of these metals causes suffering. Plus, the danger to other road users still stands, as does the air pollution (PM 2.5 pollution is still produced from tyres and brake pads).



So SUVs are a disaster and electric cars are not, but deflate them anyway?


----------



## matticus (13 May 2022)

icowden said:


> So SUVs are a disaster *and electric cars are not*, but deflate them anyway?



Eh? They give the problems with electric right there - in the line above yours, which you have quoted!!!


----------



## icowden (13 May 2022)

matticus said:


> Eh? They give the problems with electric right there - in the line above yours, which you have quoted!!!



Nope not seeing it. They suggest that Electric cars are good and use that as an argument that SVs are cancelling out Electrics in terms of reducing carbon savings. They then talk about air pollution which electric cars don't generate. They talk about SUVs being dangerous when electrics are safer. Then they tell you to deflate them as well...


----------



## matticus (13 May 2022)

icowden said:


> Nope not seeing it. They suggest that Electric cars are good and use that as an argument that SVs are cancelling out Electrics in terms of reducing carbon savings.



Where did they say they're good? They've only said that they have one advantage - making some carbon savings. Sadly, in the real world SUV purchases have wiped that out. They then expand on the overwhelming problems with electric (lithium, safety etc etc ...).

(Seems to me that you've attempted to twist some quite simple statements into something .. quite odd!)


----------



## Dogtrousers (13 May 2022)

icowden said:


> Nope not seeing it. They suggest that Electric cars are good and use that as an argument that SVs are cancelling out Electrics in terms of reducing carbon savings. They then talk about air pollution which electric cars don't generate. They talk about SUVs being dangerous when electrics are safer. Then they tell you to deflate them as well...



While I do think that the Tyre Extinguishers are a bunch of nobheads, your analysis above is utter cobblers.

_They suggest that Electric cars are good _ No they don't. They suggest the opposite (not enough rare earths etc)

_They then talk about air pollution which electric cars don't generate._ No they don't. They talk about air pollution that electric cars _*do*_ generate (PM 2.5 - electrics are no cleaner/not much cleaner on particulate emissions).

So they come to the conclusion that electric cars are fair game. Their logic is OK. I think their actions are futile and possibly counterproductive mind.


----------



## Oldhippy (13 May 2022)

All cars are polluting whatever their size or power source.


----------



## Joffey (13 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I can't believe that the actions of the eco warriors have actually converted anyone to their cause. I can believe that they've driven a significant number away from it.
> 
> I've seen some claim that at least it gets people talking about it, but generally, that's after a TV interview with one of the ever changing spokes people, that make absolute fools of themselves, and it is their ignorance and idiocy that's being talked about.



I disagree.

The climate agenda has never been in the news so much since Extinction Rebellian started their protests. The fact that it is in the news makes people become aware and as such think about changing their actions.

Insulate Britain is another one. No one was mentioning insulation until they started protesting. Now it's being discussed on the news and as a potential solution to he cost of living crisis.

It might be all a coincidence though. But I'm not sure that many people have started using more energy and fossil fuels because of the protests as an anti-protest-protest so fair play to them.

And they have converted me. I don't protest but now I am far more environmentally friendly that I was before I was aware of the severity of the climate crisis.


----------



## icowden (13 May 2022)

matticus said:


> Where did they say they're good? They've only said that they have one advantage - making some carbon savings. Sadly, in the real world SUV purchases have wiped that out. They then expand on the overwhelming problems with electric (lithium, safety etc etc ...).



They use them as a direct comparison on their paragraph titled *SUVs are a climate disaster*. Why would you compare something you think is bad with something you think is just as bad?


----------



## toffee (13 May 2022)

Just reading some of their web site and came across this


If you like, practice on a bicycle tyre first.


----------



## Jody (13 May 2022)

icowden said:


> They talk about SUVs causing Air pollution



What about private yatchs, jets, helicopters etc? Surely more air pollution than a Range Rover


----------



## Dogtrousers (13 May 2022)

Jody said:


> What about private yatchs, jets, helicopters etc? Surely more air pollution than a Range Rover


Yes, and? What about them?


----------



## Joffey (13 May 2022)

Jody said:


> What about private yatchs, jets, helicopters etc? Surely more air pollution than a Range Rover



Yachts don't have tyres...


----------



## Brandane (13 May 2022)

theclaud said:


> 'How on earth will the lentilistas recognise genuinely antisocial vehicle choices?!' bleat the SUV drivers.
> 
> Meanwhile, in our communities...
> 
> View attachment 644439



It's rare that I find myself in agreement with you claud, but on this occasion I am outraged. The owner of the Dolce Vita must be held to account for all those unnecessary bright lights wasting electricity. If I knew where it was I would go straight round there and glue myself to their front door.


----------



## Phaeton (13 May 2022)

Joffey said:


> Insulate Britain is another one. No one was mentioning insulation until they started protesting. Now it's being discussed on the news and as a potential solution to he cost of living crisis.


I've never heard of this one, is it a throwback from Brexit, or was that Isolate Britain?


----------



## matticus (13 May 2022)

Jody said:


> What about private yatchs, jets, helicopters etc? Surely more air pollution than a Range Rover



So you supported the protests against private jets? Yes?


----------



## matticus (13 May 2022)

icowden said:


> They use them as a direct comparison on their paragraph titled *SUVs are a climate disaster*. _Why would you compare something you think is bad with something you think is just as bad?_


If their intention was to confuse the hell out of you, it would appear to have worked tremendously!


----------



## Brandane (13 May 2022)

matticus said:


> So you supported the protests against private jets? Yes?



You keep asking different posters this, or a similarly worded question. 
Just because someone doesn't approve of something, doesn't mean they have to take to the streets and protest, or generally make nuisances of themselves in their quest for attention.

I stated early in this thread that I'm not overly keen on SUV's in general, but that doesn't mean I am rabidly anti SUV or that I am going to make an arse of myself by wasting my time protesting about something which, for now, is perfectly legal. Did I mention "live and let live"?


----------



## matticus (13 May 2022)

Brandane said:


> You keep asking different posters this, or a similarly worded question.



And there is a reason: people keep criticising certain protestors because "_why don't they pick on <X> <Y> <Z> etc_ "; but I bet they stayed silent when there WERE protests against those things! It's utterly transparent, just an excuse to criticise something that they are irrationally pi55ed about!

Same with the "_hearts and minds_" bullsh1te; that's not a reason to criticise a protest, it's just an excuse.

And that, my friend, is why I'm repeatedly pointing it out. It's getting boring, but don't blame me!


----------



## Dogtrousers (13 May 2022)

Why don't they pick on container ships, eh? eh? I don't see those illogical losers letting the tyres down on _them_. It's double standards.

I rest my case. I think that means I've won.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (13 May 2022)

Joffey said:


> I disagree.
> 
> The climate agenda has never been in the news so much since Extinction Rebellian started their protests. The fact that it is in the news makes people become aware and as such think about changing their actions.
> 
> ...




Very little of the meaningful discussion in the news has anything to do with the eco warriors. It's simply become a political opportunity and a way of raising money for big business, and it is they that are promoting it.

Any news item with the eco bods on is generally very negative.


----------



## matticus (13 May 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Why don't they pick on container ships, eh? eh? I don't see those illogical losers letting the tyres down on _them_. It's double standards.
> 
> I rest my case. I think that means I've won.



Close the thread!!!


----------



## Joffey (13 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Very little of the meaningful discussion in the news has anything to do with the eco warriors. It's simply become a political opportunity and a way of raising money for big business, and it is they that are promoting it.
> 
> Any news item with the eco bods on is generally very negative.



It's funny because we had wall to wall media coverage of the ER protests and I remember an awful lot of climate discussion in the media at that time. I particularly recall that they had climate experts on programmes like Politics Live.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (13 May 2022)

Joffey said:


> It's funny because we had wall to wall media coverage of the ER protests and I remember an awful lot of climate discussion in the media at that time. I particularly recall that they had climate experts on programmes like Politics Live.



You're free to believe what you like to believe. 

I've seen protesters 'demanding' things that are already in place, which shows the level of understanding they have. I also know that those opposed to climate measures think the protesters are doing a superb job, and have looked to see how to encourage them further. Read in to that what you will.


----------



## matticus (13 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> You're free to believe what you like to believe.



And you're free to believe that protests have never changed anything, if you so wish! 

[despite what history shows us... ]


----------



## ClichéGuevara (13 May 2022)

matticus said:


> And you're free to believe that protests have never changed anything, if you so wish!
> 
> [despite what history shows us... ]



The fact you've tried to represent my post in such a dishonest peaks volumes.

Where have I said that protests never change anything?


----------



## matticus (13 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> The fact you've tried to represent my post in such a dishonest peaks volumes.
> 
> Where have I said that protests never change anything?



Tell me about the good protests. The ones you thought didn't piss anyone off, but won hearts and minds.
Then I can tell the _bad _protestors what to aim for 👍


----------



## Joffey (13 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> You're free to believe what you like to believe.
> 
> I've seen protesters 'demanding' things that are already in place, which shows the level of understanding they have. I also know that those opposed to climate measures think the protesters are doing a superb job, and have looked to see how to encourage them further. Read in to that what you will.



That's a strange reply. So am I free to believe that I remember seeing that with my own eyes? 

I am in a fortunate position (some may think not) that I work from home and can watch the TV all day as I work. I clearly recall around the time of the 'big' climate protests breakfast TV, news & the lunchtime political programmes were awash with climate discussion. I usually watch that kind of TV until about 1pm then Netflix goes on.

The protests did encourage discussion whether you agree with their methods or not.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (13 May 2022)

matticus said:


> Tell me about the good protests. The ones you thought didn't piss anyone off, but won hearts and minds.
> Then I can tell the _bad _protestors what to aim for 👍



When I see someone trying to misrepresent someone elses words, or being limited to just asking questions, I usually assume that it's someone really not clued up enough on the topic to bother engaging with. 

When you rewrite someone elses response, you're effectively arguing with yourself, so I don't need to respond any further to posters of your ilk.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (13 May 2022)

Joffey said:


> That's a strange reply. So am I free to believe that I remember seeing that with my own eyes?
> 
> I am in a fortunate position (some may think not) that I work from home and can watch the TV all day as I work. I clearly recall around the time of the 'big' climate protests breakfast TV, news & the lunchtime political programmes were awash with climate discussion. I usually watch that kind of TV until about 1pm then Netflix goes on.
> 
> The protests did encourage discussion whether you agree with their methods or not.



You can obviously believe what you see with your own eyes (to an extent, but that's a whole different topic). What you can't do is then compare that to things that you haven't seen, just because you missed them. 

As I said, I also know that those opposed to climate measures think the protesters are doing a superb job, and have looked to see how to encourage them further. Read in to that what you will.


----------



## Joffey (13 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> You can obviously believe what you see with your own eyes (to an extent, but that's a whole different topic). What you can't do is then compare that to things that you haven't seen, just because you missed them.
> 
> As I said, I also know that those opposed to climate measures think the protesters are doing a superb job, and have looked to see how to encourage them further. Read in to that what you will.



So I can't compare me seeing lots of coverage on TV about climate protests and climate change with me not seeing a lack of coverage because I saw lots of coverage?

Great chat 👍


----------



## ClichéGuevara (13 May 2022)

Joffey said:


> So I can't compare me seeing lots of coverage on TV about climate protests and climate change with me not seeing a lack of coverage because I saw lots of coverage?
> 
> Great chat 👍



The fact you never saw what was going on before, doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Much of what the protesters like extinction rebellion were shouting about, was already scheduled to be happening. The media coverage of the climate issues is driven by the businesses that will benefit, not by the protests. The coverage of the protests is generally negative, pointing out the stupidity and ignorance of those involved.

As I said, I also know that those opposed to climate measures think the protesters are doing a superb job, and have looked to see how to encourage them further. Read in to that what you will.


----------



## MrGrumpy (13 May 2022)

Whatever happened to Greta ?


----------



## Joffey (13 May 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> The fact you never saw what was going on before, doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Much of what the protesters like extinction rebellion were shouting about, was already scheduled to be happening. The media coverage of the climate issues is driven by the businesses that will benefit, not by the protests. The coverage of the protests is generally negative, pointing out the stupidity and ignorance of those involved.
> 
> As I said, I also know that those opposed to climate measures think the protesters are doing a superb job, and have looked to see how to encourage them further. Read in to that what you will.



I didn't just watch TV for this few weeks - been home working for 6 years. That's a lot of TV watching and there was a definite increase in climate coverage during the protests compared to not much before. I'd say there is more after the protests than before.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (13 May 2022)

Joffey said:


> I didn't just watch TV for this few weeks - been home working for 6 years. That's a lot of TV watching and there was a definite increase in climate coverage during the protests compared to not much before. I'd say there is more after the protests than before.



I can add a few decades to your tv based experience, and you still seem to be ignoring the reasons _why_ it's currently getting more coverage. 

You could also consider that there are some influential people that want more of the climate measures, and they have lobbied to get the protesters actions limited.

*As I said, I also know that those opposed to climate measures think the protesters are doing a superb job, and have looked to see how to encourage them further. Read in to that what you will.*


----------



## Pat "5mph" (13 May 2022)

Mod Note:
Thread locked because of the numerous NACA style personal attacks.
You're welcome to repost the topic in the NACA forum.


----------

