I came in thinking "hell yeah" but Let's not paint Paris as the green capital of the world just yet when just over half of 5.7% made a good choice. So, I think a Subaru Impreza just squeaks in...
I came in thinking "hell yeah" but
54.6% voted in favour of special parking fees for SUVs, according to provisional results. However, the turnout – at about 5.7% of Paris’s registered voters – was lower than green campaigners had hoped for.
Let's not paint Paris as the green capital of the world just yet when just over half of 5.7% made a good choice.
The cost of on-street parking for an SUV or 4x4 car would rise to €18 (£15) an hour in the centre of Paris and €12 an hour in the rest of the city.
The prices will apply to vehicles weighing more than 1.6 tonnes with a combustion engine or hybrid vehicles, and more than 2 tonnes for electric vehicles.
So, I think a Subaru Impreza just squeaks in under this but an Audi A5 is a hair over. Unless French spec of those cars is different.
The turnout for [the vote to ban electric scooters] – 103,000 people, about 7% of registered voters – was higher than for the vote on SUVs.
That's pretty funny. People hate the scooters more than the SUVs.
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”.
Can't say I disagree with their point, considering how few voted...
But still, drivers are free to choose whatever car they want, they just have to pay for the extra space they're choosing to obstruct with their boat.
Just a note on this as someone who lives in Paris - you don't usually see that many SUVs around the city (and certainly a fraction of them compared to any regular city in the US). The scooters...
That's pretty funny. People hate the scooters more than the SUVs.
Just a note on this as someone who lives in Paris - you don't usually see that many SUVs around the city (and certainly a fraction of them compared to any regular city in the US). The scooters were much more annoying - riding on sidewalks almost hitting people, many not respecting road rules, many left broken and dumped wherever, parked messily and sometimes on already narrow sidewalks, making it more complicated to manoeuvre if you're handicapped or use a stroller. I think more people were inconvenienced by the scooters than SUVs.
As a general note, I also feel the SUV vote was less advertised or discussed than the scooter vote. I completely forgot it was even happening at all. This measure might not seem like much, but even without this new restriction, having an SUV (let alone a car) is becoming more and more prohibitive in Paris anyway. It's a pain in the ass to find on-street parking (many spots have been replaced), a lot of roads have been converted to cycle paths, or to better accommodate bicycles (even formerly major traffic areas), and the vast majority of areas limit speed to 30km/h.
None of that really sounds like the fault of the scooters, and even if changing the people is hard, moving them to a dedicated right of way is much simpler. The mere fact that they became a...
None of that really sounds like the fault of the scooters, and even if changing the people is hard, moving them to a dedicated right of way is much simpler. The mere fact that they became a nuisance literally illustrates their popularity and power to transform commuting around Paris but people won’t cede an inch of space for their cars.
All of that already existed. Electric scooters are meant to be used on bicycle paths, and too many did not respect the rules. The city has made huge strides in creating cycle paths all over the...
All of that already existed. Electric scooters are meant to be used on bicycle paths, and too many did not respect the rules. The city has made huge strides in creating cycle paths all over the city, which you can see here: https://carte.velo-iledefrance.fr (edit:suggest zooming in on the map as the first view doesn't show the full details).
There are roads that used to be major arteries for cars that are now for use exclusively or almost exclusively for bicycles/scooters and public transport (Rue de Rivoli being probably the most famous example). If cyclists could respect the rules and use the correct spaces, there was no excuse for electric scooter renters.
There were also dedicated spots for parking for electric scooters. Normally you wouldn't even be allowed to leave the scooter wherever you wanted as the apps would restrict based on GPS. That didn't work, you'd still find them parked where they shouldn't be.
I don't think the problem was too much space being given to cars, I think it was just too easy for inconsiderate people to rent these scooters and do whatever with them, and little to no consequences for not following the rules. And people rightly got fed up. Note we have the same system for bicycles (both bicycles with stations and free-standing) and it's not as much of an issue.
I image part of that is that cycling requires more of an investment than renting a scooter. Rent-a-scooter is going to be more of a one-off or occasional activity for people compared to someone...
If cyclists could respect the rules and use the correct spaces, there was no excuse for electric scooter renters.
I image part of that is that cycling requires more of an investment than renting a scooter. Rent-a-scooter is going to be more of a one-off or occasional activity for people compared to someone who owns a bike and uses it to get around everywhere, so it makes sense that cyclists would know the laws better than scooter users.
Not like that makes the problem go away or anything, but it seems like a problem that could have benefited from better public awareness or signage along with more vigilant enforcement rather than jumping to an outright ban.
Even when I was there a decade ago Paris already had basically the same operation as the rent-a-scooters but with bikes, and it wasn't a new thing. The main difference being there were dedicated...
Even when I was there a decade ago Paris already had basically the same operation as the rent-a-scooters but with bikes, and it wasn't a new thing. The main difference being there were dedicated stands/infrastructure instead of the electric scooters, where people both renting and charging tend to just deposit them wherever feels convenient.
There wasn't really an investment to riding a bike for a few minutes or a day.
I've elaborated in another response why I think rental scooters are more prone to issues than bicycles, even those that are just as easy to rent. Signage may have helped a bit, but I'm not sure it...
I've elaborated in another response why I think rental scooters are more prone to issues than bicycles, even those that are just as easy to rent. Signage may have helped a bit, but I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. In a lot of areas the sidewalks are quite narrow compared to what you see in US cities, and they're not smooth. It should be pretty obvious it's not meant for scooters or bicycles. Also vigilance would require police to be in a lot of places at the same time, banning them is easier and cheaper than increasing police presence. These things were all over the place. I suspect a large percentage of users were tourists, so if they get caught I'm not sure how much they would really care. I don't know enough to say one way or another.
I want to make this clear: I only think that there was probably a way to solve the problem without banning them outright. The fact that you have the same exact business model operating in Paris...
I want to make this clear: I only think that there was probably a way to solve the problem without banning them outright. The fact that you have the same exact business model operating in Paris without public issue, but for a slightly different shaped vehicle, and also tons of infrastructure available for small personal vehicles to use, it doesn’t make you feel like it’s obviously the case? Certainly it can’t be that it’s just the nature of scooters that people become inconsiderate jerks when placed upon one.
Also I don’t understand the details here. People say “Paris banned scooters” but is it even true? Or were they just banned from sidewalks?
Rental scooters were banned, personal scooters are still allowed. I think a number of factors made them more problematic than bicycles: They could be used by people who don't know how to ride...
Rental scooters were banned, personal scooters are still allowed. I think a number of factors made them more problematic than bicycles:
They could be used by people who don't know how to ride bicycles, meaning a bigger pool of people using them (so a bigger pool of assholes if that stays proportional).
They could go way too fast (initially at 25km/h until they got limited). For something with brakes that are inferior to bicycles, that's a recipe for disaster. They were eventually limited but too little too late in my opinion.
I think they were cheaper to rent but don't quote me on that, I haven't ridden one in a good while.
The most used rental bike system is the Velib' which is a docked system with stations. If you don't dock your bike properly at a station you keep paying. Free-standing bicycles are available but less common, so fewer people use them. Less chance of leaving bicycles in inconvenient spots.
They could carry more than one person at a time (even though this was illegal and dangerous). I saw this happen at least a couple of times a week. It happens with rental bicycles too, but it's vanishingly rare.
The companies renting these scooters out didn't penalise people hard enough for not parking where they should, or their system made it too easy to park wherever.
They're lighter than bicycles, so easier to pick up and dump if you're into vandalism.
Still, none of these factors have anything to do with the city or cars.
From a public policy perspective there is another take on 'rental scooters are bad': you want as many people as possible on mass transit, and if not, then on foot, and finally on a bike. Cars...
From a public policy perspective there is another take on 'rental scooters are bad': you want as many people as possible on mass transit, and if not, then on foot, and finally on a bike. Cars don't enter the equation, except for edge cases, such as for people with reduced mobility.
If you add the rental scooters in the mix, they will siphon travellers away from mass transit or pedestrian, but not other modes of transport. From the perspective of the city, this is not desirable. Should it be car travellers switching to scooters, there would be an incentive for a city to organise it better. Now allowing scooters is facilitating a mode of transport that cannibalizes your preferred alternative, mass transit.
Is the goal "as many people on mass transit as possible" or "move the most people with the highest efficiency/lowest space" ? It's hard to imagine a scooter replacing a train ride, but easy...
Is the goal "as many people on mass transit as possible" or "move the most people with the highest efficiency/lowest space" ?
It's hard to imagine a scooter replacing a train ride, but easy imagining it replacing the walk to the train station (or enabling the trip in the first place if the walk was too far).
It's really too bad the rental scooters were allowed to get so far out of hand. Consider this part of @Foreigner 's answer: It sounds to me like there were too many rental scooters too suddenly,...
It's really too bad the rental scooters were allowed to get so far out of hand. Consider this part of @Foreigner 's answer:
Free-standing bicycles are available but less common, so fewer people use them. Less chance of leaving bicycles in inconvenient spots.
It sounds to me like there were too many rental scooters too suddenly, unlike the free-standing bikes which exist in smaller numbers.
My municipality is also experimenting with rental scooters, and while there have been some annoyances, there were never so many that people hated them. And over time the rental company has gotten better with their logistics and operations as well.
That's definitely a factor. I think it also comes down to the fact that Paris is a very dense city, with narrow streets and a lot of people. The rental scooters added to the clutter and chaos,...
That's definitely a factor. I think it also comes down to the fact that Paris is a very dense city, with narrow streets and a lot of people. The rental scooters added to the clutter and chaos, which we have enough of as it is. They're probably fine in less dense cities with wider sidewalks and dedicated lanes with less traffic.
I understand your point but it's a bit "guns don't kill people" to be like "not the scooters fault." Additionally a dedicated RoW wouldn't solve leaving them in the way of pedestrians and blocking...
I understand your point but it's a bit "guns don't kill people" to be like "not the scooters fault." Additionally a dedicated RoW wouldn't solve leaving them in the way of pedestrians and blocking accessibility access. Those are things that can be addressed but I don't think any one, not even people that may have voted to ban scooters, blamed "the scooters"
I don’t think it’s like that at all because guns are literally made to be used to kill people. Institutional prejudices are frequently perpetuated by unwitting people who simply seek to maintain...
I don’t think it’s like that at all because guns are literally made to be used to kill people.
i don’t think anyone that may have voted to ban scooters, blamed "the scooters"
Institutional prejudices are frequently perpetuated by unwitting people who simply seek to maintain their own interests without engaging in critical thought and without any willful malice towards any particular group.
As a pedestrian I have always found the people getting around the city in the manner that is so hazardous they literally have to purchase liability insurance a lot more annoying. And the pedestrians who are complaining about the scooters and not the cars are the ones that drove to a couple blocks from their destination. And they whine about the scooters so they vote to get rid of them, which only puts more cars back on the road…
This doesn't really apply to Paris. In addition to making the city more cycle friendly, the mayor has been on a mission for years to make it very car unfriendly. As I mentioned above, it's...
As a pedestrian I have always found the people getting around the city in the manner that is so hazardous they literally have to purchase liability insurance a lot more annoying. And the pedestrians who are complaining about the scooters and not the cars are the ones that drove to a couple blocks from their destination. And they whine about the scooters so they vote to get rid of them, which only puts more cars back on the road…
This doesn't really apply to Paris. In addition to making the city more cycle friendly, the mayor has been on a mission for years to make it very car unfriendly. As I mentioned above, it's expensive and inconvenient to own or drive a car here. Our public transport system, while not perfect, is pretty good. The number of roads or lanes is also being cut down drastically to benefit cyclists/scooters, pedestrians, and public transport. Heck, even the whole of Paris Centre (former arrondissements 1 to 4) is meant to be completely pedestrianised by 2030. This one is squarely on the rental scooter riders and the companies that rented them out, not cars or the city.
As I said, I understand you're coming from a particular point of view. It is just odd IMO to be like "not the scooters' fault" when the scooters were definitely the new factor in the situation and...
As I said, I understand you're coming from a particular point of view.
It is just odd IMO to be like "not the scooters' fault" when the scooters were definitely the new factor in the situation and removing them likely solves the problem. The "jackasses that leave the scooters around" might be the underlying cause and a transportation system that needs to be rebuilt might be underlying that further, but I don't think France allows one to ban the former and the latter is clearly a longer-term solution. I'd also probably have voted to ban scooters from the sidewalks if my partner consistently had sidewalks blocked for his wheelchair, forcing him into a parking lot, or worse, the street. And I definitely wouldn't have thought it was the "scooters fault" in that process, "institutional prejudice" or no.
Sort of moot. If you care about something, vote, if you don't, defer. In this case the majority voted to increase the prices and you'll just have to assume people generally agree, or they would've...
Can't say I disagree with their point, considering how few voted...
Sort of moot. If you care about something, vote, if you don't, defer.
In this case the majority voted to increase the prices and you'll just have to assume people generally agree, or they would've voted.
A local news station did some testing and found a dozen children could sit in-line in front of an Escalade and all be hidden. According to this infographic from the same channel, it has a front...
A local news station did some testing and found a dozen children could sit in-line in front of an Escalade and all be hidden. According to this infographic from the same channel, it has a front blind spot of 3 meters or 10 feet when seated normally. There needs to be legislation to force manufacturers to add front-facing cameras to these vehicles.
A bit tongue in cheek, but a Sprinter can. And a van is not an SUV/pick-up truck. But yeah, you won't find a sedan/wagon that's allowed to pull 3.5 tonnes. For good reasons, you don't want to...
non-SUV/pick-up truck out there that can pull that weight
A bit tongue in cheek, but a Sprinter can. And a van is not an SUV/pick-up truck. But yeah, you won't find a sedan/wagon that's allowed to pull 3.5 tonnes. For good reasons, you don't want to attach 3.5 tonnes to a 1.6 ton car (which would be your limit if you wanted to avoid penalty parking fees in Paris). Physics would not be kind to that weight distribution.
Vans are generally the default business carry car in most of Europe since they carry much more efficiently than any pickup truck can. It's not too tongue in cheek, it's the right answer.
Vans are generally the default business carry car in most of Europe since they carry much more efficiently than any pickup truck can. It's not too tongue in cheek, it's the right answer.
No they aren't, and I didn't intend on saying you're not driving the right vehicle for the job so I apologise if I came across that way. Use the right tool for the job of course. Vans often are...
No they aren't, and I didn't intend on saying you're not driving the right vehicle for the job so I apologise if I came across that way. Use the right tool for the job of course. Vans often are when it's just weight and volume, less so when it's actual rugged terrain.
If you're driving for your work, the company would be paying for the parking, right? In that way it's preventing the externalization of the spatial and environmental costs of performing that...
If you're driving for your work, the company would be paying for the parking, right? In that way it's preventing the externalization of the spatial and environmental costs of performing that business function. That seems like an argument in favor of this legislation.
And frankly (pun absolutely intended) it works in favor of business too. Higher parking fees are designed to keep those vehicles off the street. If you can reduce traffic and reduce the number of...
And frankly (pun absolutely intended) it works in favor of business too. Higher parking fees are designed to keep those vehicles off the street. If you can reduce traffic and reduce the number of vehicles parked on the street, business vehicles will be able to move about faster. They'll probably recoup the extra parking cost in efficiency gains.
This is the same rationale that's causing business to support the NYC congestion tolls. Removing other cars from the road improves their logistics.
By that argument, companies should never be expected to foot the bill for the non-monetary costs - social, environmental, spatial - of doing business. That leads to the privatization of profits...
By that argument, companies should never be expected to foot the bill for the non-monetary costs - social, environmental, spatial - of doing business. That leads to the privatization of profits and externalization of costs.
If capitalism works, and the business passes on the costs, then either that should be acceptable to the consumer, or the company should go out of business. Possibly overtaken by a competitor that does not pass on those costs. If it's a service that people cannot choose to go without, and the company cannot function while still paying for the true cost of their actions, then maybe that's an issue with the free market that needs to be addressed.
I'm also just extremely wary of arguments that holding businesses responsible will make things more expensive. Businesses are going to charge the most they possibly can without losing customers. Holding them financially responsible for the impacts of their business is an excuse for them, not an actual cause.
It's also kind of a perverse incentive. Fewer personal SUVs parked in the city means more available spots for business SUVs, which are then able to park there for free. While I doubt this would raise the number of work SUVs to even remotely approach the number of personal SUVs, it would still encourage business SUVs to park there. Those SUVs are less likely to patronize the businesses in the area (shops, restaurants, etc.) and are therefor the opposite sort of traffic that the city wants to attract.
To say this is my wheelhouse (pun intended) here is putting it lightly. The Sprinter van mentioned previously can do exactly what you're describing with no issue and is better than an SUV. That...
That being said: I absolutely need an SUV for work. We have to transport goods by pulling trailers loaded with 3-3.5t goods on them, and there isn't a single non-SUV/pick-up truck out there that can pull that weight. If anyone knows an alternative, please let me know.
To say this is my wheelhouse (pun intended) here is putting it lightly.
The Sprinter van mentioned previously can do exactly what you're describing with no issue and is better than an SUV.
That said, if you are regularly pulling a trailer with 3-3.5t of goods and they aren't extremely tall goods, you shouldn't be pulling a trailer at all and should have a box truck. Which would be more maneuverable, economical, practical, and longer lasting an an SUV+trailer.
Gotcha, so yeah if it's not fitting inside the vehicle it's going to require a trailer. When I've moved oversized (read: needs trailer/too large for van/SUV/pickup) in past professions I've used...
Gotcha, so yeah if it's not fitting inside the vehicle it's going to require a trailer. When I've moved oversized (read: needs trailer/too large for van/SUV/pickup) in past professions I've used box trucks (if it needs to be protected from the weather in an enclosed trailer) or flat bed commercial trucks (if weather protection isn't an issue). Greater ground clearance than vans and SUVs in both options, ability to also bring a forklift along in the box/bed as well.
Other points remain, box/flat bed (with or without hydraulic gate/tilting bed) are more economical in the long run and longer lasting as well as being more maneuverable off road and on winding routes. Short of some scenarios that were one-shot, I generally found trailers behind passenger vehicles to be the worst way to transport things. Since you're delivering these things commercially, I'd definitely look into a box or flat bed.
Mercedes sells stock Sprinters with 4x4, torque limiters and dual tires on the rear axle, directly from the factory. People in the "adventure van" community regularly add chunky tires, diff locks...
Mercedes sells stock Sprinters with 4x4, torque limiters and dual tires on the rear axle, directly from the factory. People in the "adventure van" community regularly add chunky tires, diff locks and winches to them.
I'm sure a traditional off-road 4x4 has better trail performance (just because of the lower weight and shorter wheel base), but I cannot possibly imagine an SUV pulling a 3.5t trailer to have better performance in the dirt.
Price is another question, of course. Sprinters are pricey vans to begin with, and upgrading them to do off-road is making that worse. Then there's practicality. Once you're done pulling trailers, you can use an SUV as a daily driver. Doing that with a Sprinter takes a high pain tolerance or a deep love for "van life".
I came in thinking "hell yeah" but
Let's not paint Paris as the green capital of the world just yet when just over half of 5.7% made a good choice.
So, I think a Subaru Impreza just squeaks in under this but an Audi A5 is a hair over. Unless French spec of those cars is different.
That's pretty funny. People hate the scooters more than the SUVs.
Can't say I disagree with their point, considering how few voted...
But still, drivers are free to choose whatever car they want, they just have to pay for the extra space they're choosing to obstruct with their boat.
Just a note on this as someone who lives in Paris - you don't usually see that many SUVs around the city (and certainly a fraction of them compared to any regular city in the US). The scooters were much more annoying - riding on sidewalks almost hitting people, many not respecting road rules, many left broken and dumped wherever, parked messily and sometimes on already narrow sidewalks, making it more complicated to manoeuvre if you're handicapped or use a stroller. I think more people were inconvenienced by the scooters than SUVs.
As a general note, I also feel the SUV vote was less advertised or discussed than the scooter vote. I completely forgot it was even happening at all. This measure might not seem like much, but even without this new restriction, having an SUV (let alone a car) is becoming more and more prohibitive in Paris anyway. It's a pain in the ass to find on-street parking (many spots have been replaced), a lot of roads have been converted to cycle paths, or to better accommodate bicycles (even formerly major traffic areas), and the vast majority of areas limit speed to 30km/h.
None of that really sounds like the fault of the scooters, and even if changing the people is hard, moving them to a dedicated right of way is much simpler. The mere fact that they became a nuisance literally illustrates their popularity and power to transform commuting around Paris but people won’t cede an inch of space for their cars.
All of that already existed. Electric scooters are meant to be used on bicycle paths, and too many did not respect the rules. The city has made huge strides in creating cycle paths all over the city, which you can see here: https://carte.velo-iledefrance.fr (edit:suggest zooming in on the map as the first view doesn't show the full details).
There are roads that used to be major arteries for cars that are now for use exclusively or almost exclusively for bicycles/scooters and public transport (Rue de Rivoli being probably the most famous example). If cyclists could respect the rules and use the correct spaces, there was no excuse for electric scooter renters.
There were also dedicated spots for parking for electric scooters. Normally you wouldn't even be allowed to leave the scooter wherever you wanted as the apps would restrict based on GPS. That didn't work, you'd still find them parked where they shouldn't be.
I don't think the problem was too much space being given to cars, I think it was just too easy for inconsiderate people to rent these scooters and do whatever with them, and little to no consequences for not following the rules. And people rightly got fed up. Note we have the same system for bicycles (both bicycles with stations and free-standing) and it's not as much of an issue.
I image part of that is that cycling requires more of an investment than renting a scooter. Rent-a-scooter is going to be more of a one-off or occasional activity for people compared to someone who owns a bike and uses it to get around everywhere, so it makes sense that cyclists would know the laws better than scooter users.
Not like that makes the problem go away or anything, but it seems like a problem that could have benefited from better public awareness or signage along with more vigilant enforcement rather than jumping to an outright ban.
Even when I was there a decade ago Paris already had basically the same operation as the rent-a-scooters but with bikes, and it wasn't a new thing. The main difference being there were dedicated stands/infrastructure instead of the electric scooters, where people both renting and charging tend to just deposit them wherever feels convenient.
There wasn't really an investment to riding a bike for a few minutes or a day.
I've elaborated in another response why I think rental scooters are more prone to issues than bicycles, even those that are just as easy to rent. Signage may have helped a bit, but I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. In a lot of areas the sidewalks are quite narrow compared to what you see in US cities, and they're not smooth. It should be pretty obvious it's not meant for scooters or bicycles. Also vigilance would require police to be in a lot of places at the same time, banning them is easier and cheaper than increasing police presence. These things were all over the place. I suspect a large percentage of users were tourists, so if they get caught I'm not sure how much they would really care. I don't know enough to say one way or another.
Thanks! That's super helpful for context.
I want to make this clear: I only think that there was probably a way to solve the problem without banning them outright. The fact that you have the same exact business model operating in Paris without public issue, but for a slightly different shaped vehicle, and also tons of infrastructure available for small personal vehicles to use, it doesn’t make you feel like it’s obviously the case? Certainly it can’t be that it’s just the nature of scooters that people become inconsiderate jerks when placed upon one.
Also I don’t understand the details here. People say “Paris banned scooters” but is it even true? Or were they just banned from sidewalks?
Rental scooters were banned, personal scooters are still allowed. I think a number of factors made them more problematic than bicycles:
Still, none of these factors have anything to do with the city or cars.
From a public policy perspective there is another take on 'rental scooters are bad': you want as many people as possible on mass transit, and if not, then on foot, and finally on a bike. Cars don't enter the equation, except for edge cases, such as for people with reduced mobility.
If you add the rental scooters in the mix, they will siphon travellers away from mass transit or pedestrian, but not other modes of transport. From the perspective of the city, this is not desirable. Should it be car travellers switching to scooters, there would be an incentive for a city to organise it better. Now allowing scooters is facilitating a mode of transport that cannibalizes your preferred alternative, mass transit.
Is the goal "as many people on mass transit as possible" or "move the most people with the highest efficiency/lowest space" ?
It's hard to imagine a scooter replacing a train ride, but easy imagining it replacing the walk to the train station (or enabling the trip in the first place if the walk was too far).
It's really too bad the rental scooters were allowed to get so far out of hand. Consider this part of @Foreigner 's answer:
It sounds to me like there were too many rental scooters too suddenly, unlike the free-standing bikes which exist in smaller numbers.
My municipality is also experimenting with rental scooters, and while there have been some annoyances, there were never so many that people hated them. And over time the rental company has gotten better with their logistics and operations as well.
That's definitely a factor. I think it also comes down to the fact that Paris is a very dense city, with narrow streets and a lot of people. The rental scooters added to the clutter and chaos, which we have enough of as it is. They're probably fine in less dense cities with wider sidewalks and dedicated lanes with less traffic.
I understand your point but it's a bit "guns don't kill people" to be like "not the scooters fault." Additionally a dedicated RoW wouldn't solve leaving them in the way of pedestrians and blocking accessibility access. Those are things that can be addressed but I don't think any one, not even people that may have voted to ban scooters, blamed "the scooters"
I don’t think it’s like that at all because guns are literally made to be used to kill people.
Institutional prejudices are frequently perpetuated by unwitting people who simply seek to maintain their own interests without engaging in critical thought and without any willful malice towards any particular group.
As a pedestrian I have always found the people getting around the city in the manner that is so hazardous they literally have to purchase liability insurance a lot more annoying. And the pedestrians who are complaining about the scooters and not the cars are the ones that drove to a couple blocks from their destination. And they whine about the scooters so they vote to get rid of them, which only puts more cars back on the road…
This doesn't really apply to Paris. In addition to making the city more cycle friendly, the mayor has been on a mission for years to make it very car unfriendly. As I mentioned above, it's expensive and inconvenient to own or drive a car here. Our public transport system, while not perfect, is pretty good. The number of roads or lanes is also being cut down drastically to benefit cyclists/scooters, pedestrians, and public transport. Heck, even the whole of Paris Centre (former arrondissements 1 to 4) is meant to be completely pedestrianised by 2030. This one is squarely on the rental scooter riders and the companies that rented them out, not cars or the city.
As I said, I understand you're coming from a particular point of view.
It is just odd IMO to be like "not the scooters' fault" when the scooters were definitely the new factor in the situation and removing them likely solves the problem. The "jackasses that leave the scooters around" might be the underlying cause and a transportation system that needs to be rebuilt might be underlying that further, but I don't think France allows one to ban the former and the latter is clearly a longer-term solution. I'd also probably have voted to ban scooters from the sidewalks if my partner consistently had sidewalks blocked for his wheelchair, forcing him into a parking lot, or worse, the street. And I definitely wouldn't have thought it was the "scooters fault" in that process, "institutional prejudice" or no.
Sort of moot. If you care about something, vote, if you don't, defer.
In this case the majority voted to increase the prices and you'll just have to assume people generally agree, or they would've voted.
A local news station did some testing and found a dozen children could sit in-line in front of an Escalade and all be hidden. According to this infographic from the same channel, it has a front blind spot of 3 meters or 10 feet when seated normally. There needs to be legislation to force manufacturers to add front-facing cameras to these vehicles.
I mean, you probably don't work in the center of Paris. The problem with SUVs is not people who actually need to haul things like you.
A bit tongue in cheek, but a Sprinter can. And a van is not an SUV/pick-up truck. But yeah, you won't find a sedan/wagon that's allowed to pull 3.5 tonnes. For good reasons, you don't want to attach 3.5 tonnes to a 1.6 ton car (which would be your limit if you wanted to avoid penalty parking fees in Paris). Physics would not be kind to that weight distribution.
Vans are generally the default business carry car in most of Europe since they carry much more efficiently than any pickup truck can. It's not too tongue in cheek, it's the right answer.
No they aren't, and I didn't intend on saying you're not driving the right vehicle for the job so I apologise if I came across that way. Use the right tool for the job of course. Vans often are when it's just weight and volume, less so when it's actual rugged terrain.
If you're driving for your work, the company would be paying for the parking, right? In that way it's preventing the externalization of the spatial and environmental costs of performing that business function. That seems like an argument in favor of this legislation.
And frankly (pun absolutely intended) it works in favor of business too. Higher parking fees are designed to keep those vehicles off the street. If you can reduce traffic and reduce the number of vehicles parked on the street, business vehicles will be able to move about faster. They'll probably recoup the extra parking cost in efficiency gains.
This is the same rationale that's causing business to support the NYC congestion tolls. Removing other cars from the road improves their logistics.
By that argument, companies should never be expected to foot the bill for the non-monetary costs - social, environmental, spatial - of doing business. That leads to the privatization of profits and externalization of costs.
If capitalism works, and the business passes on the costs, then either that should be acceptable to the consumer, or the company should go out of business. Possibly overtaken by a competitor that does not pass on those costs. If it's a service that people cannot choose to go without, and the company cannot function while still paying for the true cost of their actions, then maybe that's an issue with the free market that needs to be addressed.
I'm also just extremely wary of arguments that holding businesses responsible will make things more expensive. Businesses are going to charge the most they possibly can without losing customers. Holding them financially responsible for the impacts of their business is an excuse for them, not an actual cause.
It's also kind of a perverse incentive. Fewer personal SUVs parked in the city means more available spots for business SUVs, which are then able to park there for free. While I doubt this would raise the number of work SUVs to even remotely approach the number of personal SUVs, it would still encourage business SUVs to park there. Those SUVs are less likely to patronize the businesses in the area (shops, restaurants, etc.) and are therefor the opposite sort of traffic that the city wants to attract.
To say this is my wheelhouse (pun intended) here is putting it lightly.
The Sprinter van mentioned previously can do exactly what you're describing with no issue and is better than an SUV.
That said, if you are regularly pulling a trailer with 3-3.5t of goods and they aren't extremely tall goods, you shouldn't be pulling a trailer at all and should have a box truck. Which would be more maneuverable, economical, practical, and longer lasting an an SUV+trailer.
Gotcha, so yeah if it's not fitting inside the vehicle it's going to require a trailer. When I've moved oversized (read: needs trailer/too large for van/SUV/pickup) in past professions I've used box trucks (if it needs to be protected from the weather in an enclosed trailer) or flat bed commercial trucks (if weather protection isn't an issue). Greater ground clearance than vans and SUVs in both options, ability to also bring a forklift along in the box/bed as well.
Other points remain, box/flat bed (with or without hydraulic gate/tilting bed) are more economical in the long run and longer lasting as well as being more maneuverable off road and on winding routes. Short of some scenarios that were one-shot, I generally found trailers behind passenger vehicles to be the worst way to transport things. Since you're delivering these things commercially, I'd definitely look into a box or flat bed.
Mercedes sells stock Sprinters with 4x4, torque limiters and dual tires on the rear axle, directly from the factory. People in the "adventure van" community regularly add chunky tires, diff locks and winches to them.
I'm sure a traditional off-road 4x4 has better trail performance (just because of the lower weight and shorter wheel base), but I cannot possibly imagine an SUV pulling a 3.5t trailer to have better performance in the dirt.
Price is another question, of course. Sprinters are pricey vans to begin with, and upgrading them to do off-road is making that worse. Then there's practicality. Once you're done pulling trailers, you can use an SUV as a daily driver. Doing that with a Sprinter takes a high pain tolerance or a deep love for "van life".