Parisians Vote For Rise in Parking Fees for SUVs (bbc.com) 301
Parisians have approved a steep rise in parking rates for SUVs in the French capital. The proposals were approved by 54.55% of voters, but turnout was only about 5.7%. From a report: The move triples parking rates for cars weighing 1.6 tonnes or more to $20 an hour in inner Paris. The vote was called by Socialist Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who has argued that SUVs are dangerous and bad for the environment. About 1.3m residents of central Paris were eligible to vote. However they will not be affected by the result as street-parking for local residents will remained unchanged. The move is mainly aimed at people from the suburbs who drive into the centre of the capital for the day.
There are exemptions for fully electric cars, taxi drivers, tradespeople, health workers and people with disabilities. Ms Hidalgo has been in office for almost 10 years. Under her tenure as mayor, many Paris streets, including the banks of the river Seine, have been pedestrianised. An extensive network of cycle lanes has also been built, in an effort to discourage driving. Environmentalists argue that SUVs consume more fuel than other cars and that their construction and use produce more harmful emissions. Supporters of the move also note that tall vehicles are deadlier than lighter cars when they are involved in accidents.
There are exemptions for fully electric cars, taxi drivers, tradespeople, health workers and people with disabilities. Ms Hidalgo has been in office for almost 10 years. Under her tenure as mayor, many Paris streets, including the banks of the river Seine, have been pedestrianised. An extensive network of cycle lanes has also been built, in an effort to discourage driving. Environmentalists argue that SUVs consume more fuel than other cars and that their construction and use produce more harmful emissions. Supporters of the move also note that tall vehicles are deadlier than lighter cars when they are involved in accidents.
Perfect policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Perfect policy (Score:5, Informative)
Native country folk around Paris take the train. It is cheaper and faster and you don't have to deal with parking.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People who say this aren't routinely moving around six or seven people and a dog. I guess we can take a car and a crossover SUV instead, of course that doubles the energy used and takes two parking places.
Re: (Score:2)
If the huge SUV is, say, 50% more expensive, then it still saves you money over taking two vehicles, assuming you're filling it up enough to need 2 vehicles otherwise. You just pay the extra expense, assuming you don't manage to come under one of the exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
You can just park in a private garage. Street parking is already ludicrously difficult to come by in most places.
Re: (Score:2)
You are quite obviously an idiot.
>This is a perfect example of effective policy to wean people off of SUVs.
No, no it isn't. It doesn't affect the people living there who own SUVs at all. What it DOES do is restrict how much local business owners and city tax income will make, as they will lose a large portion of sales from SUV owners who will not bother to go to the city for purchases. It wouldn't surprise me if surrounding towns see an explosion of new business and retailers catering specifically to the
Re: (Score:3)
What it DOES do is restrict how much local business owners and city tax income will make, as they will lose a large portion of sales from SUV owners who will not bother to go to the city for purchases.
Yes, this is the goal. They don't want people driving large SUVs that take up too much space and pollute too much in the city. Cities are desirable for a reason and it's not dependent on a handful of SUV drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what people are doing when it comes to their towns? Registering their vehicles in other states, states that don't have a residency requirement, nor do they require in state insurance. It shouldn't cost more to register your vehicle because it's a different type of vehicle. Owners of SUVS already pay more to the government by means of the fuel tax.
Re: (Score:3)
I’m ok with this.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a perfect example of effective policy to wean people off of SUVs. It basically says, you want to own one, you can, but pay through the nose for the externalities of what you are doing. USA - this is very likely to come to a town near you in the form of higher vehicle registration fees.
You would know this is a stupid policy if you compared the size and weight of the most popular EV's to that of the most popular SUV's. Here are the curb weights. If you check you will find many of the EV's have larger dimensions too.
Top 5 most popular EV's https://www.kbb.com/best-cars/... [kbb.com]
Tesla Y: 4,154 to 4,398 lbs
Tesla 3: 3,862 to 4,034 lbs
Ford Mach E: 4,394 to 4,920 lbs
Chevy Bolt: 3,680 to 3,715 lbs
Volkswagon ID4: 4,317 to 4,877 lbs
Top 5 most popular SUV's https://www.kbb.com/best-cars/... [kbb.com]
Toyota Rav4:
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read the article just the click bait headline. The fees apply to visitors not residents. This is basically have other pay but not me, then come the complaints when they don't come.
I would say that the suburbs should charge the cities for the traffic that just passes through.
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the truck craze in the US is car companies guiding consumer behavior so they can dodge emission standards.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'd argue that dodging emission standards means that ultimately, it's the government guiding public behavior, just badly.
I've noted before that if I was the DOT I'd be clamping down on the "commercial exceptions" that end up making cars more expensive than trucks and SUVs that get to dodge large parts of the emissions and mileage requirements.
The reason trucks are mostly all huge these days? They're that big because the DOT tried to put the small light trucks, like the old rangers, under car rules, at
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah there is a huge policy failure here. Unfortunately anyone who has the political will and capital to do anything about it is busy fighting other battles now.
Re:Perfect policy (Score:4, Insightful)
We all wanted the Ford Ranger back and what did they give us? that ugly ass new Maverick and the new Ranger about as large as a 1990's ford f150... while the new F150 is about as big as the old F350!
Re: Perfect policy (Score:3)
Should be no categories of emission standards. Just a sliding scale. The same test for everyone. And if you pollute more, you pay more.
Your freedom to pollute is maintained. Just it might hurt you in the hip pocket. The price of freedom isnâ(TM)t free.
Re: (Score:2)
They’re trying to avoid hurting economically productive activity. It wouldn’t be good if everything became more expensive because they’re trying to whittle down the impact of everyone’s morning commute. Unfortunately the US auto industry sucks ass.
Re: (Score:2)
CAFE standards [energy.gov]
CAFE fines [jalopnik.com]
Since the CAFE standards exceed what is possible with an ICE, while 95% of the cars sold are ICE vehicles, well, the cost impact should be obvious.
New passenger car sales over time [statista.com]
Total consumer vehicle sales, including used [stlouisfed.org]
Lots of interesting EPA charts [epa.gov]
The EPA stuff is interesting, showing how the CAFE standards have driven (ha) people towards SUVs, and that emissions and fuel economy are not improving uniformly across fleets.
The bottom line is that what is happening now is an exerc
Re: (Score:3)
The EPA stuff is interesting, showing how the CAFE standards have driven (ha) people towards SUVs,
If you asked 100 people about how the CAFE standards 'drove' their buying decisions, 95 or more would ask you 'what's a CAFE standard'?
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't do anything except buy the closest vehicle to what they wanted. When I was a kid (70s/80s) most families aspired to a station wagon. Since that was classified as a car, it's been disfavored in the CAFE standards, and people were pushed to light trucks, like SUVs and pickups.
Fashion industry? (Score:2)
Lol no the auto companies spend a ton of money guiding consumer behavior. The auto industry basically hatched a meme that you can nullify the effects of erectile dysfunction, cowardice around loud teenagers, and obesity so that your masculinity is still protected by your bigass truck.
Think about it; you’re basically talking fashion here, that’s an industry totally driven by advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point was intended to be that the 'big three' in the USA are indeed guiding consumer behavior, by their going after the biggest profit centers in their business... so they are not INTENTIONALLY guiding consumer behavior, that is a byproduct of their desire to maximize profits regardless of consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they are. They sell SUVs because on the whole, SUVs and trucks make more profit.
They have been guiding consumer preferences towards SUVs since the 90s in order to make more profit.
The fact that people think it looks cooler and such is be
The concept of externalities is very old (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF do you think laws *ARE* ? They are the government setting order among chaos by setting rules. And yes those rule sometimes tells you how to live or what to do, that is what it means to live in a society.
You really looks like you should take a breath of air.
Re:The concept of externalities is very old (Score:5, Informative)
This is bullshit, and you know it. The "externalities" are paid for in tax on gasoline.
Err, no they aren't. Taxes on gasoline doesn't even pay for the cost of maintaining the roads you drive on to say nothing of the externalities of the act of driving. Shit that goes double in the USA where taxes on gasoline are a complete joke.
Re:Perfect policy (Score:5, Insightful)
The people voted for this measure. Hardly government totalitarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bollocks you don't. You think if you gave the people of your country a free vote on whether to give themselves $1,000,000 each tomorrow they wouldn't vote overwhelming for it and how it would be paid for be damned? You think if the US gave them a free vote on whether to bomb the shit out of Iran the day after 3 US soldiers were killed they wouldn't do the same? The whole and on
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to take a wild guess that the person I am responding to is male or very oblivious to the realities of the United States.
A resounding number of women in this country were told that their reproductive health doesn't matter. In the case of Texas, even if the fetus was most likely non-viable and that carrying the fetus to term would likely endanger her life, that she should do it anyway because there was a chance several medical experts could be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I should also add, the government dictates how you live hundreds of times a day.
The government makes you: carry insurance on your vehicle, build your home to code, controls the zoning on your property, tells you how fast you can drive, what traffic laws you must follow, wear clothes in public, and that's just off the top of my head.
Re: Perfect policy (Score:2)
Urbanites can't drive their sedans to near you in all times, because they have the wrong car type for near you.
Seems reasonable that you too may have the opportunity to have the wrong car for urban environs, despite it fitting well for your home environs.
Apples and oranges much? /s (Score:2)
Sedan EVs are really heavy, without that 'EV' exemption they would also be an SUV when it comes to weight, and just as deadly. Looks like my compact Crossover hybrid would not qualify by about 100lbs (darn that small battery that adds 10mpg).
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about weight, it's about height. The article mixes and matches terms.
Re: (Score:2)
You also have that even a heavy sedan is more likely to hit somebody in the legs, which is more survivable, than the chest/head, which is less.
For that matter, they're making sedans now that are designed to flex the hood to help reduce damage when hitting a pedestrian. Where with a truck/SUV they're more likely to go under and be crushed.
Re: (Score:2)
Just mandate a forward looking camera on the taller Trucks / SUVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was walking through a parking lot yesterday (after leaving a store) and walked by a pickup truck backing into a parking spot and heard it thump the bumper of the vehicle in the other spot. It wasn't hard. Just enough to hear a light crinkle of bumper.
The pickup truck was relatively new so should have had a backup camera but, like you said, probably didn't use it or didn't use it properly.
The entire point of backup cameras is because SUV and pick up truck drivers were backing over their own kids. Apparent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even without being an EV, a lot of passenger cars exceed that weight.
Of course, 'tall' can contribute to deadly in different ways. The higher center of gravity contributing to instability in an accident is a problem in SUVs that want to ride tall, and EVs tend to go the other way by having most of the weight in the bottom of the car. Still not great to have that much momentum in a collision, but at least it's lower. Also visibility for pedestrians, when some of these SUVs cosplay as big rigs, they end up
Re: (Score:2)
quote: 'tall vehicles are deadlier than lighter cars'
Sedan EVs are really heavy, without that 'EV' exemption they would also be an SUV when it comes to weight, and just as deadly. Looks like my compact Crossover hybrid would not qualify by about 100lbs (darn that small battery that adds 10mpg).
It's not so much about the weight (as you suggest) but how tall the front is, with sedans considered as baseline SUVs (>44" front) are around (depending on the slope) +(44%-45%) more likely to cause fatality [iihs.org] - because of it's front height and/or slope
Shouldn't there be a minimum participation? (Score:4, Insightful)
The proposals were approved by 54.55% of voters, but turnout was only about 5.7%.
While I won't argue with their process, I feel that for the final results to be legitimate you'd need to have at least 25% turnout (which in itself would still be extremely low IMO). Accepting them with such a low turnout feels ripe for pushback (which would probably seem legitimate) by those affected (which didn't have any say per the story).
Re: (Score:2)
That's fair but that was peoples choice to not participate in something that might affect them, now they are stuck with it.
If you want minimum turnout enact and enforce mandatory participation I say.
The Simpsons - You Really Should've Voted Homer [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's fair but that was peoples choice to not participate in something that might affect them, now they are stuck with it.
Well, actually, no, that wasn't the case (and was my point about them not having a say); from the summary:
About 1.3m residents of central Paris were eligible to vote. However they will not be affected by the result as street-parking for local residents will remained unchanged. The move is mainly aimed at people from the suburbs who drive into the centre of the capital for the day. (these people didn't get to vote)
Re: (Score:2)
Great, why were they not allowed to vote? Should people who are not residents of a city have jurisdiction over how that city conducts it's business over the wishes of the actual residents?
If this law violates something on a provincial or federal level then if this were the US they are free to challenge the ruling court on whatever legal grounds they feel the city is violating.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if "none of the above" is a valid option.
As I like to say, of what use is a vote when the candidates are owned by the same corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
It's only *your* SUVs that are bad. Ours are fine. (Score:2, Informative)
"The vote was called by Socialist Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who has argued that SUVs are dangerous and bad for the environment. About 1.3m residents of central Paris were eligible to vote. However they will not be affected by the result as street-parking for local residents will remained unchanged."
I don't think the pedestrian mowed over by a SUV feels any better knowing it was driven by a resident. And damage to the environment is from miles driven/gas used, not where the owner lives.
But, typical politics. Don
Re: (Score:2)
> But, typical politics. Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax someone else's SUV.
It’s something about letting the people enjoy their neighborhood while lightly punishing those who don’t live there but still casually create totally avoidable problems before fucking off to their suburb. All the local SUV owners will still get theirs when they take their problemobile into someone else’s neighborhood.
If you really want an SUV you can still have one. If you have one but it doesn’t mean t
Re: (Score:3)
"The vote was called by Socialist Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who has argued that SUVs are dangerous and bad for the environment. About 1.3m residents of central Paris were eligible to vote. However they will not be affected by the result as street-parking for local residents will remained unchanged."
I don't think the pedestrian mowed over by a SUV feels any better knowing it was driven by a resident. And damage to the environment is from miles driven/gas used, not where the owner lives.
But, typical politics. Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax someone else's SUV.
I'd be happy to charge (European) SUV owners extra (I don't really give a shit about the US ones, I don't live there) because in European cities SUV owners practically always park in one and a half parkings spaces simply because these damn things are usually too big for a regular parking space. On top of that they also often require somewhere between one and a quarter to one and one and a half lanes to get anywhere in cities around here forcing anybody on a two lane street coming the opposite way to park th
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the pedestrian mowed over by a SUV feels any better knowing it was driven by a resident. And damage to the environment is from miles driven/gas used, not where the owner lives.
Parisian locals do not drive SUVs. If they did they'd have almost no way of getting them into parking places near their houses. The SUV scourge on the city is from people in the suburbs commuting in and parking in the commercial districts. Residents aren't the problem here.
Re: (Score:3)
This is just not going to happen. Paris doesn't have a single commercial district, and Parisian retailers aren't dependent on visitors driving SUVs for trade in any way, shape or form. You're stuck so deep in an American rabbit hole you find it impossible to imagine life could be different elsewhere. This insularity is so depressing to see.
The point isn't what's on the label. (Score:2)
It's a thinly veiled cash grab meant to shame without altering behaviour. If you really want to do anything other than reach into somebody's wallet, other targets are more appropriate. But claiming it's about emissions is intellectual dishonesty.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tax on visitors.
Re: (Score:2)
On the right track (Score:2)
I'm not sure this exact proposal is the way to go, but I do think parking rates should reflect how much of the street a vehicle takes up. You can park a lot more tiny Honda Fits on a given length of street than giant SUVs, so they require less infrastructure and less expense.
I realize stuff like this will never fly in car-worshipping North America. Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
.. parking rates should reflect how much of the street a vehicle takes up. ...
I'm not sure what you mean by parking rates - is that something in USA streets? Otherwise, at least here in the UK, car parks are marked out in bays and even the smallest car occupies a whole one. In streets where there is a charge there are also marked lengths, one per parking meter. The length is somehow calculated on what the 99%ile competent driver can manage to get in or out in the 1%ile smallest car, or something like that. Drivers of larger cars may need to be more competent than others. Some str
My SUV is offended (Score:2)
When did it become socially acceptable to ask about vehicle weight?!? That's not how the body positive movement works, it's supposed to be inclusive. That line of questioning may cause my SUV to suffer from depression.
Unless they have a scale there, they'll need to look at the manufacturer stamp showing gross curb weight. Those stamps can be custom made and replaced easily. If they have the manufacturer's specs on the vehicle, just tell them you're has been modified. You can also play games with them by deb
1.6 tonnes == 3527.4 pounds (Score:2)
Wait until they find out what EV's weigh. LOL. Meanwhile two of my SUV's weighs less than that.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait until YOU learn how much pollution EVs cause in a city compared to your two SUVs.
Hint: It's basically 0
Good public policy, here's why... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lol thank you for finally admitting that conservative politics is all about selfish behavior.
Selfish behavior as long as they have the safety of a functioning society where they can enjoy it.
car takes 2 parking spaces charge accordingly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SUVs especially in older towns take parking spaces for 2 smaller cars - charge accordingly - it is that simple.
What BS. According to that, cars change their size according to how old the town is. Anyway, you would need a 2-seater Smart Car to get near being half the length of an average SUV, but that would not halve the length of the parking because they still need manoeuvering space. Car parks are marked in bays and even the smallest car occupies a whole one. In streets where there is a charge there are also marked lengths, one per parking meter. Where I am, some streets are reserved for residents only (who are
Re: (Score:2)
Lol i live in the city and the street parking is not marked lengths and there are trucks all over the place parked two tires on the sidewalk.
BBC article partially inaccurate (Score:4, Informative)
The quoted BBC article states:
About 1.3m residents of central Paris were eligible to vote. However they will not be affected by the result as street-parking for local residents will remained unchanged."
That's not entirely true. Parisian motorists will only be partially unaffected by the result, since if they park their (>=1.6 tons) vehicle outside their residential area (4 zones around the main residence area), they will be subject to the same rates as non-residents.
Asking in Ignorance... (Score:2)
Does the city control the parking rates because they own the parking, or is this a fee that private parking operators pay on a per-vehicle basis?
Here in the states, it's common to see both public and private parking and I'm curious if that's the case in Paris as well.
I've driven in Paris (Score:2)
There's a reason that most cars there are small. Roads are narrow and congested. Driving a large vehicle in Paris makes little sense
Ridiculous weight limit (Score:2)
Would you consider a Mini Cooper Countryman ALL4 to be a "heavy SUV"? 3,545 lbs
Re:Restrict your freedoms for yur own good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, in the US....you do on both counts.
1. You are born with inherent rights as a human.
2. The constitution pretty much spells it out that most all rights not listed in the US constitution (which are mostly limited powers and responsibilities the federal govt has) is reserved for the states and the people. So, basically if there's not a law AGAINST it, you have a right to own/do it.
In the US....the govt
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no such thing as "human rights"
A right is only as good as it can be defended and the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights are defended by the United States having a monopoly of force and that filters down from the Feds to the States to your local county and town.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no such thing as "human rights"
A right is only as good as it can be defended and the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights are defended by the United States having a monopoly of force and that filters down from the Feds to the States to your local county and town.
Your argument does not follow. You can have natural rights even if they are injured. Of course, the question remains whether are such things as natural rights. But if they exist, by definition, they are independent of the civil state. Even Thomas Hobbes argues this.
BTW - cf. your (I assume) Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Hence, they are "human rights," not "American rights."
/scholar of 18th century ius natura
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah this the road where philosophy meets reality.
Philosophically we have human rights as a concept humans invented for ourselves, it's a social construct and social constructs are only as good as the society they exist in. We don't have to go back more than a couple decades to see what happens to human rights in a society that doesn't respect the concept of them, much less. Pretty much what Leviathan describes as a foundational work of social contract theory.
THE final cause, end, or design of men (who na
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes agree but I think people make this mistake of the fact that rights have some sort of supernatural power, that they mean anything at all outside of the context of society and a system of justice that comes with it. If that doesn't exist then it's all might makes right and ink on paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing I am not a socialist/communist. Got anything better?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A right is only as good as it can be defended
Congratulations, you found out why the 2nd Amendment exists.
Re:Restrict your freedoms for yur own good (Score:5, Insightful)
Being human does still not give you a right to own the biggest possible car. The opportunity, sure - if you can afford it. This law just makes it more expensive to afford it.
Re:Restrict your freedoms for yur own good (Score:4, Insightful)
You can choose a smaller car.
You can't choose not to be Chinese.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US....the govt does NOT grant you rights, you have them as a human.
That's a distinction without a difference.
The rights you can actually exercise in practice are the ones that the government actively protects. A government without rights is functionally no different from rights without the government.
It may make a fine philosophical conversation whether they are natural and protected versus granted but that's all really.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing about freedom here
Freedom from excess and unfair taxation.
There has been uprisings and wars fought over this very same subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Restrict your freedoms for yur own good (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have a God given or constitutional right to own as large a motor vehicle as possible.
Driving a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. And like all privileges, it can be revoked.
Re:Restrict your freedoms for yur own good (Score:4, Interesting)
I just wish America wasn't headed the same direction. There are myriad federal and state laws restricting individual freedom for social good and most of them do more harm than good. Charging more for SUVs in one city is in particular an empty signal of virtue, but based on a frightening principle.
Ridiculous argument. Fees can be based on any number of things. Tractor-trailers often get assessed road fees based on weight and mileage to help pay for road wear caused by their weight. Why not similar fees for SUVs (or heavier) consumer vehicles. A city can impose taxes/tariffs to address it's needs and/especially in this case, the people voted for it. Sounds like democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"An empty sign of virtue" to you, but effective city planning and climate policy for most of us. Get off your high horse.
Re:Restrict your freedoms for yur own good (Score:4, Interesting)
inconveniences others
God I wish this was a qualifying factor that could be used against bad drivers who don't use the passing lane as intended, drive at a speed that causes traffic to backup behind them, or cause accidents when they take their 2wd vehicle into snowy conditions and ultimately cause wrecks or stop traffic for multiple hours. Please god I want to hold these idiots accountable for the days I've lost due to their ignorance and stupidity.
Re: Restrict your freedoms for yur own good (Score:3)
Itâ(TM)s not the people in 4wds that cause the problem in the snow because they havenâ(TM)t figured out that they donâ(TM)t magically have four wheel stop?
Re: (Score:3)
However, you have the OBLIGATION to be patient on the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Does this magical heavy vehicle defy the law of physics by using less gas to overcome inertia? And is gas taxed? And therefore wouldn't these vehicles be taxed more already?
EVs use no gasoline, and are heavier than their ICE equivalents. So yeah, I guess they're magical.