972

Parisians vote in favour of tripling parking costs for SUVs (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/world@lemmy.world

173 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Gigan@lemmy.world 175 points 9 months ago

Awesome, fuck SUV's

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 101 points 9 months ago

"But that will make it cost prohibitive to own an SUV!!!"

Yes... Yes it will.

[-] Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

You call it a bug.

I call it a feature.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 62 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] merdaverse@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

The next "logical" step after SUVs is driving APCs in the name of safety.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Kekzkrieger@feddit.de 44 points 9 months ago

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

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 28 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 16 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago

Not saying this is what you're saying, but the average french SUV doesn't cost 100k. In-laws bought one almost new for 15k. They're not poor, but definitely not rich, and would think twice about buying one next time if it means they pay more for parking.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] MonsterMonster@lemmy.world 35 points 9 months ago

54.6% voted for the increase.... turnout was 5.7%. So just over 3% of the eligible Parisian population voted for this.

Source

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

The turnout for those things is always extremely low.

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 17 points 9 months ago

LOL at all the SUV drivers that didn't go to vote

[-] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

They were trying to find parking during the vote and missed it.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 32 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

As an SUV owner, I agree. It tries to do too many things, so it's not good at any of them. When we had kids, I wanted a minivan. They're ugly, they don't get good gas mileage, their handling is like a pregnant yak- but if you need to haul around kids and their stuff, there's nothing better. My wife at least considered it, but we ended up with a hybrid SUV. I don't completely hate it, but I still would rather have gotten a minivan.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)

[-] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago

Easiest vote in the world is to vote to raise someone else's taxes. We should do that for billionaires.

[-] anarchy79@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Not just "someone" else's. SUV owners'. Specifically. For a good reason.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 9 months ago

Wait, they banned electric scooter rentals?

Is the main argument that they're unsightly?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 63 points 9 months ago

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,

[-] exocortex@discuss.tchncs.de 45 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago

They said they're dangerous and cause stress for pedestrians

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago

Stand up scooters should use the bike lanes.

[-] n2burns@lemmy.ca 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 12 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 11 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024

972 points (98.9% liked)

World News

38979 readers

2622 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.