The Tyre Extinguishers

[matticus]

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

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]

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

(back on page 1.)

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

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

 

[Dogtrousers]

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

It was great!

 

[matticus]

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

I found it great and incisive.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

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]

rather than just replying with rather dull

Now that REALLY hurts

 

[MrGrumpy]

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]

Quitter

 

[Profpointy]

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]

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]

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…

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

Meanwhile, in our communities...

 

[icowden]

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]

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]

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]

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!)