You must log in or # to comment.
Awesome, fuck SUV’s
I came down the comment section searching for exactly this kind of argumentation. Thank you!
Yes! Fuck them! Wait…what? Why can’t i park my Peugeot e-308 there? WHAT? No! That’s not an SUV! Well…it’s 1759 Kg and therefore an SUV. This rule is utter stupidity.
“But that will make it cost prohibitive to own an SUV!!!”
Yes… Yes it will.
You call it a bug.
I call it a feature.
Not for those who can afford 100k+ to buy it in the first place. There will be some who see this as a further requirement to show the world that they are rich enough to belong to an exclusive club.
This whole vehicular size arms race needs to go away please.
It’s so retarded that people think they need to get bigger cars to “protect” themselves in accidents. Just feedback looping stupidity.
The next “logical” step after SUVs is driving APCs in the name of safety.
already exists, armed with variety of lethal and non-lethal defense systems, up-armoured to take on anything short of 30mmAP rounds
Makes sense. The guy openly carrying weapons with the look of he is dying to use them clearly gets into less problems then the guy who doesn’t attract any attention to himself. You really want to be threatening people by just being there, that will definitely work out well for you. That’s why I carry around a matchet and scream at random people to back off
Penis enhancement
But how will the other people know I have money if my car isn’t huge?
The protection argument has some merit, though. I remember seeing several studies that show survival rates are bigger for the SUV inhabitants in crashes. What SUV drivers don’t know (or simply don’t care about) is that it’s survival in the detriment of smaller cars inhabitants.
Poor crash compatibility, and for reasons to do with chicken imports from Europe in the past (Not just bikes covers this), light trucks have less regulation in NA compared to cars, incentivizing the manufacturers to push them into consumers as well.
It’s shittiness all round and government is like that cat from the “bachelorette woman crying” meme.
While this is great, someone who doesnt mind paying a 100k for a car wont mind the extra fees.
What would really change the game is changing existing parking spaces to fixed size parking spaces and if your over that you get towed.
That would mean they have to park their car somewhere more remote which would incentisize not buying huge cars to begin with
I can’t speak for Parisians, but here in the us my experience is that it’s the people who drove the big cars who bitch the most about the price of gas.
So the added cost would definitely be a disincentive.
There’s a ridiculous thing in the US that Europeans probably don’t know about called “rolling coal,” where people in big pickup trucks that they never use for hauling anything because it would scrape the bed modify their truck to belch out a huge cloud of black smoke on demand.
I have a Prius. They love doing it to me, because of course a hybrid that still uses gas must mean that I’m one-a them commie tree-hugging hippies. They probably pay as much in gas to do it once as it would take to get my car to go 5-10 miles. And they’re the ones putting Biden ‘I did that’ stickers next to gas pumps when gas prices go up.
Hey rednecks, you know what you have to do to not worry much about gas prices? Buy a fuel-efficient car.
Oh we know, we’ve seen the videos.
We drive a Toyota Yaris and bitch about the price of gas.
It’s a gentle nudge.
If you’re picking a car, and didn’t think about it very much, something like paying more for parking might well nudge you to a smaller car.
And it means when those 100k cars go on the second hand market for 20k a few years later, the people paying that much will not be happy with the fees.On a slight tangent, range rovers are being targeted by criminals. To the point where RR ups the security, and it’s worked around in a month or so.
This has lead to insurance premiums going way up. And while there are a few people just choking down the payments, others are switching away from RR, or from SUVs entirely.
It doesn’t put every customer off, but it certainly affects a chunk.While this is great, someone who doesnt mind paying a 100k for a car wont mind the extra fees.
Not just that, it removes the… let’s call it ‘shame factor’. Some people that would feel bad about driving big, polluting cars in the city now will feel perfectly justified: they are paying extra for the privilege. This will not reduce the number of cars and likely will increase it. It’s simply a bad policy. As you said, number of parking spots for big cars should be reduced each year putting greater and greater pressure on the owners to get rid of them.
and if your over that you get towed.
A neighbor of mine who was a 60 something year old accountant got one of those oversized pickups and managed to block my space multiple times since he couldn’t angle it in correctly.
54.6% voted for the increase… turnout was 5.7%. So just over 3% of the eligible Parisian population voted for this.
The turnout for those things is always extremely low.
LOL at all the SUV drivers that didn’t go to vote
They were trying to find parking during the vote and missed it.
This special tariff is aimed at visitors’ cars, residents are excluded and remain unaffected, as are tradesmen and care services. So most Parisians don’t care.
And even then, only a third of Parisians own a car.
Ah yes, as an Englishman I can wholeheartedly agree making decisions on minor majorities is a fantastic idea, right guys?
Well, people always have a tendency to not show up to vote and then complain about the results.
Out of curiosity, how do you know they’re the same people in both groups you described?
Easiest vote in the world is to vote to raise someone else’s taxes. We should do that for billionaires.
Not just “someone” else’s. SUV owners’. Specifically. For a good reason.
Actually, in Paris, if you own an SUV or drive one in the city, you’re rich. Poorer can’t afford one and even a car is too expensive. It’s already a tax on the rich.
For more taxes on the wealth, it’s up to the national government and it’s a complete different story.
Wait, they banned electric scooter rentals?
Is the main argument that they’re unsightly?
So, I’m pretty sure they’re talking about the rental-scooters, not all scooters, which, peopel who tend to buy their own don’t do these things… but…people get hurt on them, they increase accidents. People do stupid shit, like riding on sidewalks and trying to zip through pedestrians.
they get locked up all over the place, blocking sidewalks, entryways, bikeracks, etc.
in short the rental things are a massive nuisance,
I’d like to add that Paris is one of the tightest cities there is in Europe. there’s just so little space already. with thousands of badly parked scooters cluttering up sidewalks people got fed up very quickly. the vote was pretty one sided IIRC.
They just chucked them in the river where I’m at.
They said they’re dangerous and cause stress for pedestrians
Stand up scooters should use the bike lanes.
AFAIK, the main issue wasn’t where they’re used but where they’re stored. While scooters riding on sidewalks is an issue, the bigger issue is them cluttering the sidewalk and becoming an impedance to pedestrians, especially those with disabilities.
Interesting. I’ve seen this where I live, rental scooters just littering the sidewalk.
I wonder, whether personally-owned scooters will become more prevalent if rentals aren’t available.
I guess personally-owned scooters are going to be parked more responsibly rather than just left wherever.
I see a lot of people where I live riding around on scooters but haven’t seen the rental ones here like in bigger cities so I guess personally owned do become more popular if you can’t rent
The performance envelopes of vehicles sharing bike lanes these days are wildly different. I dread the day that RTO is complete, and rush-hour bike lanes are shared by e-bikes, e-unicycles, one-wheels, push scooters, e-standup-scooters, smaller sit-scooters, monkey bikes, e-skateboards, skateboards, and whatever else I’m missing.
What’s RTO?
But anyway those belong in bike lanes except sit down scooters.
Return to office.
Because humans are known for following rules to a fault.
Well… yes ?
I mean there will always be people that break the rules but in my experience once something becomes a law, like smoking in certain areas or whatever, people tend to follow the rules.
The rule already exists, living in the suburbs and working in Paris, I can tell you that they ended up forbidding them because a lot of people weren’t using them on the road.
so instead of that one rule, you think it’s better to have a different rule?
Wouldn’t this apply to both rented and personally-owned scooters though?
Getting rid of the rentals might reduce the number temporarily, but doesn’t really seem to solve the problem.
It gets rid of all the unused rental scooters lying around on the sidewalk, and that was seen as the biggest nuisance. Privately owned scooters will never reach the same height of scooter littering.
The rental scooter companies were unwilling or unable to deal with the issue. They were warned that this was becoming an issue.
Privately owned scooters will never reach the same height of scooter littering.
Perhaps not scooter “littering” but surely just numbers of personal transport devices.
That is to say, if no other form of transport existed, then the presence of rental scooters would surely mean that there were fewer scooters in total and thereby fewer scooters parked on the sidewalk.
most people who buy their own don’t leave it out on the street, and (while I’m not in paris…) my experience is they also tend to be more responsible about it. like riding while sober, wearing helmets, and being in the bike lane (or wherever they’re supposed to be)
Yeah I think you’re dead right there.
The rental scooters do seem to bring out the worst in people, or maybe they just tend to hilight people’s general disrespect for “things” particularly those which do not belong to them.
People will always take care of their own stuff better than someone else’s.
Edit: I’ve also noticed that people aren’t using them that much where I live. They were all over the place for a minute, but now don’t see them very much.
If you own it, presumably you’ve spent more time using it, meaning you both look and drive in a more controlled manner
This thread was weird to read as an owner of a CR-V. I checked and it’s just under the weight limit for the new law, and it fits easily in “compact” parking spaces, but I think of it as an SUV because that’s what it looks like.
Yes it is aimed against heavy and large suv, as they are more dangerous for other road users, more polluting and take too much of public place in a cramped city.
A CR-V and other “normal” suv does not take more place than a sedan
I drive a crv and have always known it as a crossover. Although funny that you mention compact spots, I looked it up one time to see if a crv counts and it does count as compact. Never the less I had a guy scold me for parking in the spot one time. His sedan definitely had a bigger foot print and he was right on the line, while I was comfortably in the middle of the spot.
I just looked down at the line between our cars and kind of raised my eyebrow at him while pointing out my car is smaller than his.
This limit needs to be instituted at a country level.
For example now that the Volkswagen up/Skoda citigo/seat Mii has been put out of production, there isn’t a single car made by all the brands of the Volkswagen group that’s shorter than 4 meters.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a referendum on Sunday, which was closely watched by other capital cities, including London, 54.6% voted in favour of special parking fees for SUVs, according to provisional results.
“Parisians have made a clear choice … other cities will follow,” said Paris’s Socialist mayor, Anne Hidalgo, adding that road safety and air pollution were key reasons for the vote.
She said the aim was to deliberately target the richest drivers of expensive, heavy and polluting cars who had not yet made changes to their behaviour to address the climate crisis.
Emmanuel Grégoire, Paris’s deputy mayor, posted on X as voting began: “Heavier, more dangerous, more polluting … SUVs are an environmental disaster.”
Under Hidalgo, Paris has for years raised pressure on drivers by increasing parking costs and gradually banning diesel vehicles, while expanding the bicycle lane network in the congested capital.
The motorists’ lobby group 40 Millions d’Automobilistes had argued that drivers should be free to choose whatever vehicle they want, warning that the move to raise parking tariffs was unjustified and the work of “an ultra-urban and anti-car minority”.
The original article contains 540 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
54.6% doesn’t seem like a clear choice to me.
It’s not a landslide but it’s pretty clear which side one. Now 50.1% could be a rounding error.
So they made having an SUV a money flex?
It already is?
I would love this in Australia, all the private school soccer mums would revolt!
5.6% participation. A joke
True, dummies that ignore local votes are jokes.
Well, those who did not vote are complacent to the majority vote. So I’d say that’s a win.
Always go out there and vote, regardless of the option you choose. That’s what keeps a democratic system up and running. If you don’t, you just agree with what is decided by others and stay complacent.
Good. They are about as expensive as normal car park fees in Amsterdam.
Suck it, SUV owners in Paris.
But really, suck it every SUV owner. They’re terrible in every single way and no one can change that.
Comments from @wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works are terrible in every single way and no one can change that! Good stuff, the fact that Paris classifies everything above 1,6 tonnes as an SUV, so that put’s even a measly Peugeot e-308 in that cateogry. But it’s a compact BEV! Still weighs 1759 Kg.
