- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
Paris votes to crack down on SUVs | Non-Parisians will be charged almost $20 per hour to park large gas or hybrid vehicles within the city center in a bid to address pedestrian safety and air pollu…::Parisians have voted to increase parking charges for out-of-town SUV drivers as part of the city’s efforts to address road safety, air pollution, and climate change.
You must log in or # to comment.
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) study that found SUVs to be 20 percent more polluting and twice as likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision compared to smaller conventional cars.
Twice as likely to kill a pedestrian…if that number holds up this needs to happen in more cities. Driving an excessively deadly vehicle through crowded areas shouldn’t be free.
I don’t think some millionaire earned a 2x chance to kill a pedestrian by being able to pay. I’m not a fan of fees that only apply rules to poor people.
But outright bans are harder to get passed, so fees are better than nothing.
Funny thing about markets though, when you put fees on SUVs that just means the prices on used SUVs will go down, and so you’ll have fees being leveed on only the poorest who have no choice but to buy the cheapest car they can find and the richest who don’t care about the fee.
They can still buy used regular cars. Anyway, in Paris and its suburbs, poor people can’t afford a car in the first place.
That’s a very ivory-Tower retort - ‘they can still buy regular cars’.
If you can barely put food on the table and NEED a car (eg for work), and nearly nothing in your bank account, do you spend $3000 on a sedan or $1000 on an equally good SUV?
Second hand market prices in general are extremely demand driven, and with vehicles in particular there are so many other costs to vehicle ownership that a change in price won’t shift overall demand much. This just changes the balance pushing SUVs to the bottom of the market. Nobody buying a Porsche SUV in Paris cares about your silly tax.
Can you give an example of a job you would need a car for in Paris?
Tradespeople, they generally own their own tools and bring several boxes to even a basic job, plenty of jobs where you don’t need a dedicated truck.
My time in Paris was before we had kids, so I don’t know about the logistics there, but in NYC where I did not even think about owning a car for years it’s Very difficult without a car, and there are no more than a few neighborhoods with everything is actually available locally.
Also anyone just starting their business who doesn’t have a purpose built vehicle yet - breaking into catering, flower shop, etc.
I fucking hate SUV’s, and I drive one (company car, had no say in the matter). Tax them all to hell and back.
It’s time for Pedestrian crash avoidance mitigation (PCAM) to be enforced as standard feature. Much better solution. Large vehicles will still need to exist, even though I agree fewer of them should.
It’s not free, at least not in Portugal. You pay an yearly tax per vehicle, the value depends on the vehicle model.
I’d love to see how they calculated those 20%. If it’s merely a statistic of which type of car was involved in what share of deadly accidents with pedestrians, it says nothing about the car but rather about the drivers.
Once a car reaches a certain speed, it really doesn’t matter if it’s an ultralight vehicle or a tank.
Less mass means less momentum, so less force is required to slow it down, which means it can slow down faster in the time between noticing the pedestrian and colliding.
Higher hood means less visibility directly in front of the vehicle. It also means it’s more likely to hit the centre of mass so the body takes the full force and falls on the ground the vehicle is moving towards, rather than lower so that the legs get pushed out and the body ends up falling on the hood.
On the flip side, they are more visible and generally louder, so pedestrians might be making fewer mistakes on their end.
The differences aren’t about when they hit someone at a high enough speed any vehicle will likely kill them, it’s about the thresholds between a harmless bump and a fatal injury.
And even if the driver is the main factor, that’s all the more reason to increase the burden involved in driving them.
Indeed, but the cost of acceleration up to that speed is heavily influenced by mass.
And I don’t know many cities where you can cruise endlessly without traffic, stops, red lights, etc. Especially Paris where you would be lucky to attain 50km/h.
I think restrictions like these should also include SUV EVs. Safety is the bigger priority than incentivizing a few more EV sales and in the future, there may only be EVs anyway.
Honestly, they should just ban all SUVs from entering altogether.
Not because of the environment or safety, just because I hate that everything is an SUV these days and they are boring af
It’s the carcinization of vehicles, they’ve all become the same thing.
Looks at Rivian, Hummer EV, and Cybertruck having crab walk features… yeah
Omg it happened again!
Honestly, they should just ban all SUVs from entering altogether.
That’s not going to convince me to sell my SUV. It’d just cause me to buy a second car.
Cool. Let idiots put some more money into economy. Or they can ask for public transport.
That would mean lots of people would have to buy a new car, which is much worse for the environment than to keep driving an SUV
Or people could just take the train or walk.
Remember, we’re talking about Paris, not a third world country in North America.
They can, but will they?
You said “have to”. They don’t have to. You’re now talking about whether they “want to” - which is now a question of whether they want to keep money in their wallet.
Don’t be pedantic. I meant that they have to buy a new car if they want to keep driving, which most of them probably will, since they wouldn’t be driving in the first place if there was a better alternative
I said “want to”, and I meant “want to”. I don’t consider it pedantry - Everyone has a choice.
- People looking to buy their first car (or replace a junker) can either get an SUV, or a sedan. This legislation tips their decision.
- People who own a car (because they live in an area that needs it) that happens to be an SUV, and are then planning to go into Paris, can choose to instead drive to a local train station, and make the rest of their trip using local means.
- People who live inside of Paris can choose not to buy a car at all; or just stop using the SUV they bought earlier after deciding it was a bad fit for their area.
There’s perhaps a fringe case of people that can afford two cars, own one SUV, and still insist on driving into the city - whether that means stomaching the fee, or buying a second car. That is very much a “want”, one that increasingly dense cities cannot easily cater to. I’d even say there’s not a huge demographic of people who could decide to buy a second car purely for this situation.
It includes electric vehicles over two tonnes, and hybrids/gas over 1.6 tonnes
Oversized vehicles are just as destructive to the environment, regardless of whether they are EV or not. In order to move that much mass, they require exponentially more electricity, which results in increased battery size and therefore more mass.
This isn’t a flaw EVs per se, it is a flaw of obnoxiously obese vehicles.
Well they also exempt taxis and city residents so it’s not about safety or the environment it’s about the money.
All SUV should be banned, but at least city residents pay taxes to the city. Sub urbanites think that they own the city and try to force it’s habitats to accept an insecure, congested, and contaminated city because is comfortable for them. If you don’t want to live in the city, it’s OK, but don’t pretend the city have to back forward for you (not talking about you personally, talking about people who lives in suburbs).
I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but where I live rent in the city works out to about two thirds of my annual income and I have a well paying job (above average for my city).
So - living in the suburbs is not really a life style choice. I can afford a very comfortable home in the outer suburbs, while in the inner city I could only afford to rent a small bedroom with a shared kitchen/bathroom/living space. And since we have a child, a share house isn’t really an option (I did live that way when I was younger).
And while I love cycling to work I can’t do it often, because it takes almost 4 hours (two hours each direction). I can take a bus, but that’s even slower (since I have to go to the CBD first, then take another bus across town to the non-CBD area where I work). The bus also costs more than twice as much as driving. Driving, by the way, takes 30 minutes.
Since I live in the outer suburbs anyway, with nice wide roads, unlimited free parking, I choose to take advantage of it by spending a lot of time outdoors where if you want a cold beer, you need to bring a fridge. If you want a hot meal, you need to bring a full kitchen. If you want to take a canoe out the water, you need to bring a canoe with you, etc etc. So, we have an SUV. And we’re not going to give it up. Sorry.
If my city banned SUVs, I’d probably just start taking taxis instead. I’m not sure that would be better for the environment or local traffic. Definitely wouldn’t affect my daily life, since I don’t live or work in the CBD.
The described use cases of SUVs way out in the beyond make sense to me - what doesn’t is the expectation that ANY vehicle is a one-size fits all. What if you want to go visit relatives in Alaska? Is an SUV really the most suitable thing for the trip? Obviously not - you’re taking a plane.
If someone is spending a lot of time in that sort of environment, and frequently needs to bring large items, I can almost kind of appreciate that need for a big vehicle. But no one, including that person, really needs to take an SUV downtown. There are many people out in suburbs that enjoy having a car, but still only take it to their closest train stop when getting into the city. And, the vast majority of SUV users don’t need to haul an entire kitchen for most of their trips; yet this still weighs against the risk of accidents those people have.
Since I live in the outer suburbs anyway, with nice wide roads, unlimited free parking, I choose to take advantage of it by spending a lot of time outdoors where if you want a cold beer, you need to bring a fridge. If you want a hot meal, you need to bring a full kitchen. If you want to take a canoe out the water, you need to bring a canoe with you, etc etc. So, we have an SUV. And we’re not going to give it up. Sorry.
This is the most suburban description of spending time outdoors I’ve ever seen.
Not being snarky: if it were about the money, would city residents NOT be exempt?
No good point, I appreciate discussions!
I think they know if it didn’t exempt city residents there would be enough backlash from eligible voters it wouldn’t pass. Seeing as it’s a fine and not a ban it can have secondary effects of improving safety and the environment but primarily it will raise money.
I’d love it if there were a wide range of offerings for EVs that aren’t crossovers/SUVs. Once you take them off the list, it’s slim pickings. Doubly so if you want range over 200mi, and doubly so again if you refuse to buy a Tesla.
“You can try the Mustang Mach-E, that doesn’t have much SUV in it.”
Glad to see an european country taking steps to counteract the trend of larger cars.
good. suvs are terrible in so many ways just for vanity
Only non-Parisians? :(
The article is wrong. Paris is divided in 20 districts (arrondissements), and the new fee applies to cars parked outside of their home district, as well as non-Parisians.
That is… Better than expected
Well, it would not be fun if people suddenly voted against themselves just to do the right thing for everyone.
I hope that this becomes practice throuout Europe and the UK. UK ministers however will say almost anything for short term gain.
‘Paris votes’ but 5.6% of parisians made the effort. Laughable
For people not living in Europe to give some context this is what a French SUV looks like compared to a F150.
So if I rent a 9 pax van and bring 8 friends to Paris, it will cost more money than if we all took separate smaller vehicles?
Article says they are tripling the cost, and 9 is more than 3, so…no.
Okay let’s do some more math. Let’s say we take three separate smaller cars. Parking price evens out if the cost for one larger vehicle is triple. But now you have three vehicles bringing in pollution instead of a large one that only takes 20% more than a smaller one. And those three vehicles take up more parking spaces and create more traffic on the roads, which would go against their stated claim of making the roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
I think it is a given that you can create scenarios for every law that make the law look stupid.
I doubt that the amount of 9 seater cars with enough people inside is actually significant to recalculate the law.
The decision by weight is most likely done as this is a value which can be easily evaluated.
If you’re looking to rent for the day, you would never pick 3 cars over 1. And if you already own the 3 cars, you wouldn’t go out of your way to rent another one. I don’t see how a parking charge would change this, unless it was far heavier than this proposal is.
Additionally, think about how many full 9-seat vans there are in Paris. Think about how many single-occupant SUVs there are. I think the benefit here is pretty clear.
That’s a fringe scenario. Try imagining something that would happen on a more daily basis.
Just be careful that those cars are not too heavy. Since this law says 1.6t , a Toyota Camry qualifies as an SUV
Not a lot of Camrys in Europe, but I get your point. I think this law needs some revisions. Charging based on how many empty seats are in your vehicle upon entry and exit of the city, may be a better way.
But who checks that?
So a Toyota rav4 hybrid (3,800 pounds) would be treated like a big truck. RAV4 has better front viewing than a sedan. This is just feel good bullshit.
If it’s about safety just make Pedestrian crash avoidance mitigation (PCAM) standard by law going forward.
By my European standards that is definitely an SUV for me. It is less about ability to see a pedestrian than it is about the ability to kill if someone gets hit with a high vehicle front.
It is also about taking up a lot of space. European streets are small an parking spots are also small. These big cars frequently take up more than 1 parking spot.
Still a 60% weight increase to a VW Up! A car much better suited for living in a European metropol.
What do you mean?
Source on the better visibility?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Parisians have voted to triple parking charges for out-of-town SUV drivers as part of the city’s efforts to address road safety, air pollution, and climate change.
“Paris is transforming itself to allow people to breathe better and live better.” In a video published to Facebook on November 14th, Hidalgo promoted the referendum by referencing a World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) study that found SUVs to be 20 percent more polluting and twice as likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision compared to smaller conventional cars.
The vote was closely monitored by other capital cities like London, which face similar challenges in tackling the various safety and pollution issues caused by the growing global popularity of SUV-type vehicles.
The increase in SUV parking rates is the latest measure Hidalgo has pursued to make Paris more friendly to the environment, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Paris officials have improved cycling infrastructure and announced plans to set up a traffic-reducing “tranquil zone” to reduce the flow of vehicles into the city center, for example, and successfully banned rental electric scooters last year following a rise in injuries and fatalities among users.
Hidalgo said last week that the removal of rental scooters had introduced a “feeling of liberation and calm,” which Paris aims to build upon further by reducing the number of SUVs in the city center.
The original article contains 448 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 50%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
Two pedestrians walk out into the street while looking at their phones. They bump into each other, and each says “Oof. Oh, sorry. I wasn’t looking where I was going.” Then they both continue on their way, and barely remember that each failed to follow the rules of travel on the roads of their town.
That interaction becomes VASTLY different when one or both of those people is driving an SUV.
deleted by creator
Yeah, you’re guilty. A HEAVIER vehicle pollutes the city more, a LARGE vehicle creates a bigger hazard for smaller vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians than someone in a smaller car, and a WIDE vehicle creates a hazard when you park in an already narrow road.
Like, I get that you’re trolling, but if you seriously don’t understand why large vehicles harm the inhabitants of cities, especially old, dense cities, then I can’t help you.
It says it right there: SUVs are less safe and more polluting. The entire city is impacted by that, so they’re recouping some of the cost.
I’d like to fine you at least €20/hour for typing with your fucking toes.
deleted by creator
Carbrain caveman hates lefties? I’m shocked~
deleted by creator
