442
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... (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's the carcinization of vehicles, they've all become the same thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Or people could just take the train or walk.

    Remember, we're talking about Paris, not a third world country in North America.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    They can, but will they?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    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."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Well they also exempt taxis and city residents so it’s not about safety or the environment it’s about the money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not being snarky: if it were about the money, would city residents NOT be exempt?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent