Tyre Extinguishers strike again, targeting SUVs in wealthy London areas

That all sounds very radical but unless you get everything absolutely right with your non-incremental changes you could easily be killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people, that doesn't sound like a good idea and from what I've seen and read there is nothing about the climate policy we need that requires justice, equity and redistribution, in fact adding them in to the requirements will just make it impossible to get any agreement on what needs to be done. 
So is this truly what the reoprt will say or is it just the interpretation of a few fools who haven't thought it through?

Backladder wrote:

That all sounds very radical but unless you get everything absolutely right with your non-incremental changes you could easily be killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people, that doesn't sound like a good idea and from what I've seen and read there is nothing about the climate policy we need that requires justice, equity and redistribution, in fact adding them in to the requirements will just make it impossible to get any agreement on what needs to be done. 
So is this truly what the reoprt will say or is it just the interpretation of a few fools who haven't thought it through?

The reason that the scientists leaked the report was to get the message out before it inevitably got watered down by fossil fuel interests (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/15/ipcc-un-climate-reports-diluted-protect-fossil-fuel-interests).

Your argument about needing to get everything absolutely right is a classic "perfect being the enemy of good" situation. The way things are going, there will be much larger numbers of casualties than simply hundreds or thousands (why do I suddenly want cake?), so we need to do everything we can to lessen the climate catastrophe.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Your argument about needing to get everything absolutely right is a classic "perfect being the enemy of good" situation. The way things are going, there will be much larger numbers of casualties than simply hundreds or thousands (why do I suddenly want cake?), so we need to do everything we can to lessen the climate catastrophe.

My argument is not about the perfect being the enemy of the good but about the law of unintended concequences.

Yet both are clarion calls to those who rush to oppose any measure that could make progress in an urgent situation.

Hmm... I think you're saying - as we all do - "I'm alright now - why risk that with change?"  This is understandable.  There are plenty who think this science stuff is someone's invention to cow people, or plain wrong.  Some folks think that it may be true but is not worth all the excitement and it's just another thing people will deal with if and when it arrives, as they always have.

If you don't fall into those particular categories then I'd argue that we have already been making fairly short-sighted changes for some decades (centuries).  We have been doing this at an increasing rate.  Some of these (e.g. leaded petrol, just dumping waste in the rivers) have already given us the chance to see we can cause awful problems in the short / medium term in the cause of "progress".  That interesting puzzles for clever minds, power and great wealth for a few and convenience for many can bite us pretty quickly.  We have had the chance to appreciate the benefits and costs of our short-term thinking and acquisitive trends.

The longer-term is a problem (or no problem at all) for individual humans - after all we won't be there.  However if the science is right we are already seeing and will see more of the effects.  Lots of this comes from choices about "convenience" (now "necessities").  This will affect our children, and grandchildren.  Are we being good ancestors? (Do we care?)  Will we be ancestors?

You may have a deeper point in that the commercial, political and social structures that have brought us to this point may be completely unsuited to making changes which will mitigate things.  Certainly it's not likely to happen in a fair way - which might mean they fail.  Are our organisational / power structures even capable of guiding us in living according to longer term interests?

chrisonatrike wrote:

You may have a deeper point in that the commercial, political and social structures that have brought us to this point may be completely unsuited to making changes which will mitigate things.  Certainly it's not likely to happen in a fair way - which might mean they fail.  Are our organisational / power structures even capable of guiding us in living according to longer term interests?

 

That's easy to answer, . . . . . NO.

Whatever point of view you take on any issue in society, anything politicians, corporations or news media do to benefit regular people is purely coincidental in achieving their own aims, i.e. benefiting themselves.

Partly correct - in that the feedback loop has to ensure that the group benefits itself as part of its effects, otherwise it won't continue to exist.  Also not entirely correct as people and organisations generally have some desire to keep the show going.  Hence most organisations aren't out-and-out pyramid marketing schemes, most people aren't full-on pirates and we tend not to set our houses on fire to warm up.

The question is the degree to which "benifits ourselves" includes "in the future and not just now".  And how long we are able to think into the future and how widely we consider the effects of our actions.

It's impossible not to feel your cynicism though if you consume "news".

chrisonatrike wrote:

It's impossible not to feel your cynicism though if you consume "news".

I just assume news is 75% lies or at least spin to make us see the 25% that is factual in a way that suits whoever pays the bills of the news outlet. Read coverage of a politicians speech in the Daily Mail and then the Guardian, you'd think the reporters had watched two completely different speeches but there will be some truth in both if you look hard enough.

Yes, I am alright now but I'm happy to vote for change if someone will promise it, unfortunately even when someone does they do not seem to get into power so the answer to your last paragraph has to be no in my opinion.

The only way I can see us getting out of these problems is to abandon the current committment to continuous growth, not just in the economy but in population as well but I doubt that idea will go down well with the public nevermind the government.

I would like to see a real attempt to put the carrot before the stick so that we can then say you were given a real chance to do the right thing (for example providing good quality free public transport before increasing motoring costs rather than increasing motoring costs and saying you will use the proceeds to provide free public transport). 

Have you got an SUV?

Matters not one jot what vehicle if any he drives.

Having started to try and cycle to work through London, sorry but it's an uncomfortable truth that a large number of cyclists in London are a law unto themselves. They'll even ignore lights specifically designed for cyclists. Honestly having witnessed this time and time again, I'm done defending cyclist by and large.

Nice to see people here defending damaging others property though.

Letting tyres down isn't really damaging them is it though.

My latex tubes seem to be great at damaging themselves...

More of a temporary inconvenience. Solved by pumping them back again.

And if it is DAMAGE to you, then only a matter of degree up to slashing the tyres, which you seem to really object to.

Only yourself to blame for running a setup that seems puncture prone, but nice whataboutism.

I use my bike as transport and even before going tubeless had only a couple punctures when running tubes with mixed road/off road use. Doesn't justify messing about with someone's property. We've now added siphoning out fuel to the mix of deranged ideas put forward here. The responses here from the self righteous on two wheels are embarrassing.

Latex tubes aren't particularly puncture prone.

But they will deflate all by themselves, requiring pumping up two or three times a week, worth it because of the lack of weight and feel.

Knowledge of cycling and all that..

I see you have come down to "messing with someone's property" unlike criminal damage or vandalism, which some have claimed, maybe even yourself.

In fact, my first few latex tubes, the wonderful air-b latex, claimed reduced chance of punctures.

ktache wrote:

Latex tubes aren't particularly puncture prone.

But they will deflate all by themselves, requiring pumping up two or three times a week, worth it because of the lack of weight and feel.

Knowledge of cycling and all that..

Apologies for my ignorance, but then like I say relying on my bike as transport I chose tubes that are less prone to loosing air as well as punctures, before I went tubless with a tyre change.

ktache wrote:

I see you have come down to "messing with someone's property" unlike criminal damage or vandalism, which some have claimed, maybe even yourself.

You seem keen on pedantry and semantics. So let me correct myself, the correct term is "interference with a vehicle" as confirmed by the police when I submitted CCTV last year of someone trying my car doors. This was someone who had previous and ended up with a 32 week sentence, but rest assured I would have no issue reporting anyone "interfering, messing, causing damage" to any vehicle I own to the police in the same way. Messing, damaging (or slashing tyres as some here seem to think is fine) is a matter of safety, so I think they'd be pretty keen on that too.

I don't drive, never have, cycle commuter for almost 35 years, started a few days after my 16th birthday, my bicycles are my primary transport. For the past 25 years I have used latex tubes. I happen to think they extra cost and faff were worth it.

My new Ultimate Commuter does use a tubeless set up but still needs air once a week.

For the practicality you claim to want, you might want to think about Tannus airless tyres. No chance of punctures and you never have to pump them up, it being such an onerous task. My brother does for his London commute.

Well done for at least being specific, though I would guess that the person interfering with your vehicle was attempting to steal something, which these protestors very much are avoiding doing.

For the past 25 years I have used latex tubes. I happen to think they extra cost and faff were worth it
They say a Princess can detect a pea beneath a pile of mattresses- I am clearly no Princess because I I can't really detect the difference between the 23 mm Kevlar tyres on the titanium Merlin and the 35 mm Marathon Plus on the Vitus gravel, admittedly both with butyl tubes. There is a 5% increased time for the Vitus, but it doesn't feel much different at the time. I am therefore impressed that you feel the difference when just changing to latex tubes- and that's not getting at you, one of the most thoughtful on here!

Marginal gains?..

Very little on times, just feel.

Sort of how as the pressure changes in the tyres over a few days, it gives you different feelings as the surface changes on your regular ride.

And, when you do get a puncture you get to write on them, an X for the hole, and then around the patch where you need to apply the vulcanising solution.

I know where I could save some weight and sadly it's not the bike, it's the rider! Helps on the downhill, not so much going uphill!

What do you want a medal?

My setup suits me. You seem to want to use the pitfalls of your own setup to excuse their behaviour. Personally I was brought up to respect others property. Of bloody course the guy trying car doors was an opportunistic thief, but deflating car tyres is still interfering with someone's property.

You've got medals?

Just a healthy respect for others property.

Are you saying "people on bikes are idiots", "most people on bikes are idiots", "many" or "some"?  If towards the latter end of that scale I would agree - I can't not.  And they're idiots in cars, and walking.  I've spend some time over the last weeks clearing up smashed bottles on the paths / cycle way locally.  Clearly some people were idiots there (didn't damage my property this time, thanks Schwalbe Marathon Plus!)  I don't know if they were particularly cycle haters (maybe enraged "motorists" or "pedestrians"?) or kids or drunks or any combination.  Idiots though.

I do find it tiring sometimes being expected to have a view / be a spokesperson for cyclists.  But when I see someone being an idiot on a bike (as I do not infrequently) it doesn't make me think "I better shut up about the benefit of cycling" though - any more than I or you would take on the guilt of drink-drivers.  Yes - it's irritating.  I try to think "glad you're not driving".  I don't think that's whataboutery - why?  Well we're all subsidising driving through our taxes.  Driving has some unavoidable negative effects, is normally unpleasant for cylists and pedestrians (the noise!) and has the potential to cause some specific harms to me or you or our relatives.

As was clear I said "a large number" as is the reality. Having ridden to work yesterday and at every single set of lights I found myself stopped at, I was joined by other cyclists, and also had others simply ignore them and ride through. The standout being a loaded cargo bike ignoring the lights at a busy junction near the tower of London.

As for the rest of your incoherent ramble. Wibble.

Adam Sutton wrote:

As was clear I said "a large number" as is the reality. Having ridden to work yesterday and at every single set of lights I found myself stopped at, I was joined by other cyclists, and also had others simply ignore them and ride through. The standout being a loaded cargo bike ignoring the lights at a busy junction near the tower of London. As for the rest of your incoherent ramble. Wibble.

Nice.  Not a big Red Dwarf fan myself but have at it.  "A large number" - that didn't really add anything did it?

From your previous post:

Adam Sutton wrote:

I'm done defending cyclist by and large.

Doesn't sound like you ever did but don't feel you have to.  Per my previous point if you cycle like a berk or a saint that's got nothing to do with how I cycle.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Doesn't sound like you ever did but don't feel you have to.  Per my previous point if you cycle like a berk or a saint that's got nothing to do with how I cycle.

Actually I have, many times. The self righteous nonsense here coupled with recent experience of cyclists on London has me facepalming with embarrassment though.

That's right others behaviour has no bearing on your own cycling, but when the reality is in places like London so many cyclists ARE cycling like berks, it really shouldn't be surprising that people frustrated with them, do question the traceability and accountability of cyclists. And for the love of god, no this is not me myself calling for registration of cyclists.