Paris anti-car rebellion

Unfortunately only 5% turnout with 55% for, so not really much of an endorsement by Parisians.

Bring it on. This, or mass vandalism aimed at giant 4x4's. I'm not really bothered which one comes first.

It’s not just SUV’s that it applies to, any PHEV over 1600 kg and any BEV over 2000kg is also going to be charged. I would guess that would cover quite a large proportion of the saloon/ hatch vehicles available in those categories.

As I keep saying, imagine how much nicer places would be if no cars larger than a fiat 500 existed. There really are no reasons to have massive SUVs be them electric or fossil fuel in a big city.

Bring it on. This, or mass vandalism aimed at giant 4×4’s. I’m not really bothered which one comes first.

I am not a big fan of very large off roaders but I am also a big fan of individual freedom when someone respects the law.

Supporting criminal damage is beyond ridiculous.

This measure is not particularly aimed at SUVs. It will affect a family estate if it happens to weigh 1601kgs. So where do you draw the line?

@nickfrog has it.

I am not a big fan of very large off roaders but I am also a big fan of individual freedom when someone respects the law.

Supporting criminal damage is beyond ridiculous.

This measure is not particularly aimed at SUVs. It will affect a family estate if it happens to weigh 1601kgs. So where do you draw the line?

Triple parking fees irrespective of vehicle mass? Plus have ULEZ charges.

I’m still disappointed at the pause on the GM congestion zone.

@dickyboy nice hyperbole. But impractical.

Unfortunately only 5% turnout with 55% for, so not really much of an endorsement by Parisians.

It was a similarly tiny percentage voted in the recent referendum on whether or not to ban the hire e-scooters and that got approved. Result - no more e-scooters available for hire and a huge increase in the number of privately owned ones (which are legal, unlike in the UK).

So where do you draw the line?

1600kg and 2000kg seems very reasonable. A 7-seater Dacia Jogger comes in well underweight. A  Zoé is 1520kg, a Megane EV 1600-1700kg, a Tesla model Y just under the 2000kg limit. Who needs more car in Paris.

The rules we could make a good start with already exist in Japan, along with the Kei car and related tax structures.

mass vandalism

SUV's seem to self vandalise looking at the amount of scratches and dents they seem to have on them.

This measure is not particularly aimed at SUVs. It will affect a family estate if it happens to weigh 1601kgs. So where do you draw the line?

It might incentivize the manufacturers to remove the bloat from new cars before all the existing infrastructure crumbles. If not, who do you think will pay for strengthening the roads and bridges: the vehicle manufacturers or the tax-paying public?

I’m still disappointed at the pause on the GM congestion zone.

That's been quietly binned off altogether.

I am not a big fan of very large off roaders but I am also a big fan of individual freedom when someone respects the law.

The problem is that very large SUVs are not an individual freedom, they have severe negative consequences for everyone else around. They're much more polluting (or resource intensive if they're EV), they're much more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists (and smaller cars) in any collision, they take up huge amounts of road space, and the weight has significant issues for roads, bridges, car parks etc. They're also wildly impractical in a city environment.

That’s been quietly binned off altogether.

That's not what I'd understood. It seems to have hit an impasse where GMCA are pushing for a non-charging zone, and HMG are saying (justifiably) there's little evidence that will work. Still, the King of the North was saying the other day how important clean air is to him, so we're all good.

It might incentivize the manufacturers to remove the bloat from new cars before all the existing infrastructure crumbles. If not, who do you think will pay for strengthening the roads and bridges: the vehicle manufacturers or the tax-paying public?

Why not simply ban EVs altogether to protect the existing infrastructure and minimise the cost of strengthening roads and bridges from those inherently bloated vehicles while you're at it?

Back OT, the new rules don't apply to residents. I guess Hidalgo doesn't want to lose any votes. It's basically a NIMBY operation. The different level of Crit'Air tax were already taxing card based on their impact.

SUVs are symptomatic of the selfishness of city driving. Some people need to drive - but they should at least do it apologetically in a small car, not in ****-you SUV. I'd happily vandalize them myself if I was brave enough.

The different level of Crit’Air tax were already taxing card based on their impact.

There isn't a Crit'air tax. And Crit'air was doing nothing to discourage anti-social vehicles on the criteria crazy-legs correctly lists. Crit'air took a lot of old light, small, slow diesel hatchbacks off the Paris streets but not big, heavy Crit'air compliant vehicles producing a lot of pollution by volume even if the concentrations of some (but not all) pollutants are lower.

Is that the same 5% of Parisians who voted to ban e-scooter hire?

Supporting criminal damage is beyond ridiculous.

This measure is not particularly aimed at SUVs. It will affect a family estate if it happens to weigh 1601kgs. So where do you draw the line?

Let's just start with the Range Rovers and the Ford Raptors and go from there shall we? The others will get the message.

You can write off an entire car with a small axe if you hit the A pillar hard enough.

Back OT, the new rules don’t apply to residents

And this is the stupid bit, if you are a resident of somewhere like Paris you have the least need for a big car or any car. Residents should be actively discouraged from owning any car. Same with places like London where public transport is close to adequate.

This measure is not particularly aimed at SUVs. It will affect a family estate if it happens to weigh 1601kgs. So where do you draw the line?

1600kg.

1600kg really isn't very heavy these days. An Octavia estate can weigh that in some trims

Let’s just start with the Range Rovers and the Ford Raptors and go from there shall we? The others will get the message.

You can write off an entire car with a small axe if you hit the A pillar hard enough.

How often do you do that? Or is that just posturing?

1600kg really isn’t very heavy these days.

I think that's the point, isn't it?

I do love how "Freedom" gets invoked when the right to drive a big bastard car is involved.

But I'm still not sure what freedom anyone with a Range Rover in Paris has potentially lost.

I was struck when I rode through Italy and France how many fewer big cars there were. It was noticeable when I got back to the UK how big cars were. It’s a fashion problem encouraged by the car companies and they need to be convinced to market them to us less through legislation.

Why not simply ban EVs altogether to protect the existing infrastructure and minimise the cost of strengthening roads and bridges from those inherently bloated vehicles while you’re at it?

Or just encourage/mandate the dinky ones which, strangely enough, the French are already a bit ahead of the curve on:

1600kg really isn’t very heavy these days. An Octavia estate can weigh that in some trims

As the owner of a 1600kg SUV I agree.

The rules we could make a good start with already exist in Japan, along with the Kei car and related tax structures.<br /><br />

I’m fine with those in cities, many Kei cars are seriously cute, and ridiculously good fun to drive. Just like Smart fourtwo’s are. 

You can write off an entire car with a small axe if you hit the A pillar hard enough.<br /><br />

all that would happen is that the car would be scrapped, a new one bought to replace it and quite probably a more hostile driver. <br /><br />

It’s basically a NIMBY operation.

isnt it more to deter people from driving into the city than to punish the people who live there?

I follow this guy on YouTube and found this latest video quote interesting regarding how increasing weight of cars is going against the increases being found by electrification.

All cars should be taxed annually based on weight on a discrete scale like tax brackets.  Starting at 1000kg for ICE and 1.2t for an EV.  All cars weighed at point of sale to take account of extras.

1000-1500kg is £1/kg

1500-1800kg is charged at £3/kg,

1800-2100kg is £5/kg

and 2100kg and above is 10/kg.

It would make people really think about what they need rather than what they want and would force automotive manufacturers to once again be more efficient rather than slapping luxuries onto everything

So, Sir wants a Range Rover PHEV to get a BIK reduction (rather than a Quashqai), huh? that’ll be 2280kg

£300 from the first bracket, £900 from the second bracket, £1500 from the third bracket and £1800 from the final bracket.  £4500 a year in tax.

Or sir could chose the Qashqui PHEV at 1636kg which would be £300 from the first bracket and  £408 from the second so £806

Or sir could have a Puma PHEV (1380kg) at £180 in tax.

@Daffy

Not a bad idea, but I've always suggested vehicle volume should be included, so VED would be based on:

1. Pollution.

2. Weight

3. Volume

That would stop JLR making a carbon Range Rover.

And categorise Pick-ups a private vehicles

You're already taxed on how efficient a car is through both road tax and fuel tax. What's the reason to tax on weight? A heavy car is not necessarily bad - a phev will weigh a couple of hundred kg more than a simple non-turbo petrol engines car but will cause less environmental damage

Why is it that we target vehicles before the complete lack of interest the Westminster government shows in public transport?

Someone above suggested that London’s public transport was at least adequate. Ha! It’s expensive as hell and it sucks! I have two sons in London and getting there by train from Cardiff is ridiculously cost prohibitive, while getting between them once there is nigh near impossible - as well as expensive. Compare that to Germany’s inexpensive and nice trains, or Luxembourg’s entirely free public transport.

Montreal is a city of four million people, and for a single, low payment per month, you can get absolutely anywhere in the city and beyond using the metro, the train, and/or the bus. And last time was there, I walked along René Levesque during morning rush, and hardly had look both ways before crossing the street because it was so quiet. There were hardly any cars at all.

So… reduce big cars and big car numbers by all means, but give the people a serious, affordable alternative, and they’ll reduce themselves.

In the meantime, I’ll feel that I’ve got no alternative but to fill up the road with my car.

@saxonrider not sure what parts of London you are travelling between but your experience is totally different to mine & I travel to numerous different site throughout London for work with no great difficulty & tfl costs are capped daily.

But for the win - get a motorbike - zero ULEZ or congestion & £1 to park all day in central London 👍

Another pipedream of mine - imagine how great public transport could be if all the money we spent on private transport was spent on public instead.

You’re already taxed on how efficient a car is through both road tax and fuel tax. What’s the reason to tax on weight? A heavy car is not necessarily bad – a phev will weigh a couple of hundred kg more than a simple non-turbo petrol engines car but will cause less environmental damage

Hence why the weight entry point for an EV is higher, but you need to tax the vehicle AND the use.  Research has shown that most people ignore daily/monthly running costs when making vehicle choices, but annual tax (even though quite small at the moment) can still inflence decisions.  This needs to be hammered home and not just on cars, but houses, energy use, everything, but cars are the most wasteful in terms of resoruces both in production and use.  5 years of a 2300kg Range Rover is almost £23k in tax, 5 years of a ludicrous BMW iX 116kwh at 2700kg would be closer to £40k in tax.  

Taxing volume penalises families who might still have bought an efficient car but suited to their needs, diabled, kids, van, etc.  But if you want to make it a lifestyle van or a luxury offroader, because...well, be prepared to pay for it.  

FYI - the weight of the chassis for the modern Range Rover  has dropped enormously over its life.  In 2003, it was 2700kg, now, even with batteries, it's 2300kg, but if you removed double glazing, massive leather, heated airconditioning massaging, whatever seats, huge panoramic sunroof, 4x4 drivetrain, etc, you'd easily save 300kg and a base range rover might be under 1750kg, but at the moment, the base RR is just under 2000kg.  Excess weight should be taxed and used to either develop or maintain infrastructure. 

Someone above suggested that London’s public transport was at least adequate. Ha! It’s expensive as hell and it sucks! I have two sons in London and getting there by train from Cardiff is ridiculously cost prohibitive, while getting between them once there is nigh near impossible – as well as expensive. 

Try driving it on a weekday, I've had the displeasure of having to drive only halfway across it, took about 3 hours to drive from the M25 to Westminster. And it cost me about £60 in TfL and parking charges!

The £15 cap is a blumin bargain!

A heavy car is not necessarily bad

F=MA ... crash protection whether real risk or perceived is part of why some people buy big, heavy vehicles now or don't feel as safe as they could in a smaller car. It becomes an arms race. With you on the other benefits of EVs though.

what sot of smallmindedness has this sort of atitude

Bring it on. This, or mass vandalism aimed at giant 4×4’s. I’m not really bothered which one comes first.

Let’s just start with the Range Rovers and the Ford Raptors and go from there shall we? The others will get the message.

You can write off an entire car with a small axe if you hit the A pillar hard enough.

Now im not a fan of SUV's and i agree that, in general, people these days are selfish but this is nuts. If we change it up.

I once got buzzed by a rodie on a canal towpath. So every time i see an MTB not im going to jump of the spokes to write the wheels off.

(btw i think the idea is a good one for the weight limits and i own a 1800kg estate)

Someone above suggested that London’s public transport was at least adequate.

It's excellent, and whenever I go there it makes me realise just how rubbish it is in the rest of the UK.

Bit going on here too

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/05/monsters-of-the-road-what-should-the-uk-do-about-suvs

Why stop there?
I was thinking about residents parking costs on my way back from my morning swim....
A ten foot car could be a bit cheaper than at present - say £100
Each additional foot and it doubles!
So, an 11 foot car is £200
A 12 foot car is £400
A 13 foot car is £800
A 14 foot car is £1600
A 15 foot car is £3200
a 16 foot car is £6400
etc...
Builders may moan, but little 600 cc japanese trucks have a bigger bed than a massive Vw Marauder or whatever.

The same exponential rates could equally be applied to payment by the hour.
It focusses the mind....

It’s excellent, and whenever I go there it makes me realise just how rubbish it is in the rest of the UK.

Think how much better it would be if private cars / minicabs / black cabs were banned from the very heart of London.

Think how much better it would be if private cars / minicabs / black cabs were banned from the very heart of London. all towns and cities

FTFY

Although I'd stop at private cars. The subsequent improvement in public transport would be worth it and might (or might not) reduce taxi use anyway.  But Taxis still do a usefull job in London e.g. if you're in a wheelchair as not all platforms are accessible.

Think how much better it would be if private cars / minicabs / black cabs were banned from the very heart of London.

Certainly ban Private cars in central London, Cabs do serve those with mobility issues, perhaps only allow them in the very centre if they have a "blue badge" passenger(?) But also rigidly keep them under 20mph, and give more of the roads over to bicycles and maybe even, god forbid, pedestrians...

Personally I would like to see London shit-can all the rental scooters Lime & Co. can get in the sea! They're just a blight, dumped en-mass making sections of pavement un-usable. While I'm not a fan of E-scooters if they're going to exist I think a regulated private ownership model where owner/user take some responsibility for their doom-scooters (including parking) actually makes much better sense now.

The thing is you can't really have any useful discussions about how to use streets better or organise transport in a city until you've removed the majority of cars.

It is only going to get worse.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/half-of-new-cars-too-wide-for-parking-spaces

I have have really noticed an increase in pavement parking recently.

It's not just SUVs.  A recent car park encounter with a lady driving a Porsche Taycan left her red (gammon) faced after she couldn't get out of it once parked.  She glared at me, shouted at me (I was watching to make sure she didn't scratch or dent my 20y old BMW) but I was perfectly parked in the middle of my bay with car only 1.7m wide.  Her Taycan by comparisson was almost 2.2m wide.  The sides of her car were within 10cm of the edge of the bay and her doors were 150-200mm thick at the widest.  Once opened, she had barely 150mm to squeeze her ass out through the door.

Again, indulgance over consideration.  2320kg to go to MnS and park as close as she possibly could to the store.

1600kg is probably actually too heavy, but it's a good start. Almost no one able bodied needs a 1600kg vehicle of any kind, and certainly not in a well connected capital city with excellent public transport like Paris.

It's not just the weight that's bad in an accident with a more vulnerable road user, heavier, more expensive cars are much worse for the environment at the manufacturing stage. Look how much more CO2 is produced manufacturing even something that appears vaguely acceptable like a Mondeo compared to a supermini-

Citroen C1 - 6 tonnes CO2

Ford Mondeo - 17 tonnes CO2

Land Rover Discovery - 35 tonnes CO2

Driving around in a Mondeo sized estate all the time because once a year you take some stuff to the dump or can't be arsed to put your mountain bike on a rack on the outside of a smaller car isn't a good enough justification for having such a big car, especially in a city.

It's a shame the scheme won't apply to residents - making people pay through the nose to take a car into a city is a great idea. Less CO2 at manufacture, less CO2 emitted, fewer particulates emitted (including from brakes and tyres in heavy cars, including from EVs) and less likely to kill someone if you do hit them. I'm glad that Edinburgh is starting to consider a scheme to stop SUVs driving into the city - that'd be really great.

A Taycan isn't 2.2m wide, not even with mirrors? It is 5m long though, which is crazy.

I miss my i3, which was 4m long and spacious inside. Current car is much better apart from dimensions. Should be a wider choice of small ev available before my lease is up, then I'll be back into a compact vehicle again.

A Taycan isn’t 2.2m wide, not even with mirrors?

TBF he said 'almost'.  I think 2144mm qualifies as 'almost 2200mm'

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/porsche/taycan/practicality

It is 5m long though, which is crazy

Mondeo hatch is 4.87m long*, so not that crazy, mind you probably explains why we could get our tandem in one with just the front wheel off

*now have a V40 which is 500mm shorter 👍

I think that one answer needs to be as much positive as negative.

Lets fully fund commuter bikes under £1k.
Lets fully fund and prioritise active travel routes.
Lets find a way to incentivise (full size) scooters / motorbikes, ebikes etc
Lets create an ultra small class of 'urban' vehicle like Kei cars and ensure there is a big financial benefit to buying one.
Lets start to work out ways of making 20 min cities a reality for many.
etc.

To only focus on a negative campaign is not as powerful or sustainable in my view.

The Taycan's rump is almost as wide as it's wing mirrors too due to the coke bottle shape of the car.  Length isnt as much of an issue, but the overall footprint difference compared to a 3 series estate is quite remarkable.  It's almost 3.5sqm bigger...that's a lot in a car that's actually only 600mm longer!

I think that one answer needs to be as much positive as negative.

Lets fully fund commuter bikes under £1k.
Lets fully fund and prioritise active travel routes.
Lets find a way to incentivise (full size) scooters / motorbikes, ebikes etc
Lets create an ultra small class of ‘urban’ vehicle like Kei cars and ensure there is a big financial benefit to buying one.
Lets start to work out ways of making 20 min cities a reality for many.
etc.

To only focus on a negative campaign is not as powerful or sustainable in my view.

Sorry but fully funded commuter bikes would then be treated like shit, it's better for things to be subsided rather than zero cost.

It's already way cheaper to motorbike or travel by tube or bus in London but there are still stacks of oversize personal vehicles clogging up the roads and making alternative means of transport unpleasant, so sticks are required - the carrots are already in place.

Interesting that there is an EU max vehicle width applied to lorries etc & cars are the same, perhaps we need a lower limit applied to private vehicles.

Vive la Austin 7 - 1.6m wide x 3.0m long.

the carrots are already in place.

I don't believe they are. Not in a meaningful way.

That said, I do agree that sticks are needed.

Incentives only work on those without entrenched habits.  Prohibition works on everyone.

It’s already way cheaper to motorbike or travel by tube or bus in London but there are still stacks of oversize personal vehicles clogging up the roads and making alternative means of transport unpleasant, so sticks are required – the carrots are already in place.

True, but it would be worse without the current sticks. The solution involves escalating sticks. e.g. changing the current CC and ULEZ in London to something more like the rest of TfL where you pay escalating amounts by zone.

Vive la Austin 7 – 1.6m wide x 3.0m long.

It's only incrementally less bad than large cars taking over a whole street. But I was surprised to find recently that a Citroen C4 Cactus (i.e. not a very small car, a decently sized hatchy sort of thing) was under 970kg. How is a Golf/Octavia 50% heavier?

I think that one answer needs to be as much positive as negative.

Lets fully fund commuter bikes under £1k.
Lets fully fund and prioritise active travel routes.
Lets find a way to incentivise (full size) scooters / motorbikes, ebikes etc
Lets create an ultra small class of ‘urban’ vehicle like Kei cars and ensure there is a big financial benefit to buying one.
Lets start to work out ways of making 20 min cities a reality for many.
etc.

To only focus on a negative campaign is not as powerful or sustainable in my view.

Look at the backlash that even fairly minor schemes like Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, School Streets etc attract. The nub of the problem is that people don't want change, they don't like change. Given the positivitiy of "look, we can make these streets incrementally better and safer", it's met with howls of outrage and protests and vandalism (admittedly from a noisy minority) that basically wants things exactly as they are, even if it means they still have to sit in traffic. And that's before you get to the wild and insane conspiracy crap about 15/20-min cities!

It needs much greater stick - carrots simply don't work to anything like the same extent.

I'm not a huge fan of simply increasing the price of things because that can entrench a rich/poor divide where the rich simply drive in anyway cos they can afford to but pricing is definitely at least part of the solution. If you have a parking space and charge £20/hr for it, that stops anyone poor but allows millionaires to simply say "sod it" and they can park there because they can afford it. If on the other hand you remove the parking space entirely and convert it to cycle parking or a bus stop or a parklet then that is far more equitable cos then no-one can park there!

"The Taycan’s rump is almost as wide as it’s wing mirrors too due to the coke bottle shape of the car.  Length isnt as much of an issue, but the overall footprint difference compared to a 3 series estate is quite remarkable.  It’s almost 3.5sqm bigger…that’s a lot in a car that’s actually only 600mm longer!"

I'll take your word for it then, but the official dimensions excluding mirrors is under 2M. Still, that's about as wide as a decently sized van. I have no clue why it's so big. My tiny mind suggests that it's a saloon pretending to be a sports car, so it needs to be wider to stay horizontal in the bends?

**** me sideways, just looked up the Galaxy I used to own, which was an an absolute shed. Smaller than a Taycan, and only marginally smaller than my Polestar 🙁

If VED was proportionate to road damage, it would indeed increase exponentially with weight. I think the calculation for road wear is in proportion to the fourth power of axle weight.

A light vehicle (500kg - 1 axle 250kg) with 2 axles would cause 256 times less road wear than a 2000kg vehicle (1 axle 1000kg).

Look at the backlash that even fairly minor schemes like Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, School Streets etc attract. The nub of the problem is that people don’t want change, they don’t like change. Given the positivitiy of “look, we can make these streets incrementally better and safer”, it’s met with howls of outrage and protests and vandalism (admittedly from a noisy minority) that basically wants things exactly as they are, even if it means they still have to sit in traffic. And that’s before you get to the wild and insane conspiracy crap about 15/20-min cities!

There is a danger in conflating loud culture war bellends with the reality of public opinion, going back to the original topic despite the campaigns and froth only 2.25% of Parisians could be arsed to defend the SUV with a vote.

The whole referendum was more or less a 'Galic shrug' from 2 million people when faced with an environmental initiative they actually had a say on, which to me is more or less just acceptance.

The loud noises against come from those with a vested interest, trying to skew the public narrative. Just like with ULEZ here in the UK, it's mostly a red button issue with those terminally divorced Dads but nobody who's opinion actually matters... 😉

if you removed double glazing

I’m still trying to process the implications of this comment.

Double glazing? In cars?!?

More generally, lighter cars are better cars. Some way of rewarding manufactures for reducing weight, and consumers for choosing that, seems good. Or a way of charging or restricting those making the opposite choices if need be. I get that an equivalent electric car weighs more… but all the car brands are going big on making electric SUVs… they, and we need saving from that trend. Hell… even Smart are pushing an electric SUV… for city use. Madness.

1600kg really isn't much nowadays - my 1st gen basic stripped out Berlingo with no safety features is ~1300kg, newer ones are way over 1600kg.

Double glazing? In cars?!?

Yes, it's a thing.

1600kg really isn’t much nowadays

Agreed, which is why we need to address it.

I follow this guy on YouTube and found this latest video quote interesting

Emissions of what?  Where have they not fallen?  I had to turn it off after the first 20 seconds.

I have two sons in London and getting there by train from Cardiff is ridiculously cost prohibitive, while getting between them once there is nigh near impossible

I have to say that's not my experience.  PT in London is pretty good in most places.  Yes, it's fairly annoying to get from some suburbs especially when they are both on opposite sides of the city.  But there's really not much else that can be done - London is just big and dense.  There are tube stations everywhere, there's a train every few minutes.  They recently built a new train line across the city and it cost bajillions and distrupted the city for a decade.  5 million people use London PT every day.  At peak times there are 543 trains all in motion around London!

As for cars - last time I went to the City during the work day there were very few cars around, but thousands of people walking all over the roads.  And at the weekend almost no-one there at all, cars or otherwise.

GWR from the SW to London is horrendously expensive.  Bristol to London costs me more than London to Brussels...quite a lot more.

Once in London, it's gloriously easy and cheap to move around.  The new QE line is now almost ridiculously fast to get across London.  It used to take 35-50 mins to get to Mile End and it's now 17mins.

GWR from the SW to London is horrendously expensive. Bristol to London costs me more than London to Brussels…quite a lot more.

Weird. I can get a cheap ticket much more often than not. Bristol to Manchester on the other hand always seems to be expensive.

can’t be arsed to put your mountain bike on a rack on the outside of a smaller car

Personally I can't be arsed gambling on whether my bikes will still be attached to my car when I come back from having a wee.

1600kg really isn’t much nowadays

Agreed, which is why we need to address it.

Have at it, I look forward to you convincing people that all the crash protection features developed over the last 30odd years are no longer worth having. Let us know how you get on.

Have at it, I look forward to you convincing people that all the crash protection features developed over the last 30odd years are no longer worth having. Let us know how you get on.

I see. So you're saying cars that weigh less than 1600kg don't have those features.

Good one.

I see. So you’re saying cars that weigh less than 1600kg don’t have those features.

Good one.

ABS was only available as part of the £800 'comfort pack' option with Aircon when my 1300kg Berlingo was new 20years ago. It certainly doesn't have any side protection.

Modern Berlingo weighs 1800kg. It's gained a bit in size in 29years but it's still effectively a tinny little van with some seats in that's now half a ton heavier, but safer.

I am bazzing about in a Toyota IQ at the moment which weighs less than 1000kg - it has modern safety features but doesn't have space for the dog/bike/shopping/French mistress though

I see. So you’re saying cars that weigh less than 1600kg don’t have those features.

+1 I'm pretty sure my sub 1500kg Volvo v40 has all desired safety features and seats 5 adults or fits 2 bikes & 2 adults in comfort.

Edit - Berlingo is a van - not a car, you want to drive around in a heavy large vehicle (because it is) then pay the price. And it's about the same size as an Evoque or XC40 btw

https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/citro%C3%ABn/c4-cactus/7863

965kg

4/5 stars

I'm still incredulous how it's so light compared to the competition, is it made from unobtanium or something?

Modern Berlingo weighs 1800kg. It’s gained a bit in size in 29years but it’s still effectively a tinny little van with some seats in that’s now half a ton heavier, but safer.

They're not "tiny little", never have been. Park it next to something like a Discovery 3, the Disco's wingmirrors stick out further, and has a longer bonnet (by a good foot I'll admit) for the longitudinal mounted engine, but otherwise it's inchers here and there.

It's only small if the frame of reference is something like a Sprinter or T4/5/6.

I'm not knocking them, I bought one, but I bought it because it was massive (by car standards).

I'm at 1450kg apparently.

In a 2020 car with a 2L turbo, that I consider big (4673mm x 2029mm), and the one thing I don't like about it is parking it as its the largest car I've ever owned. I presume dripping in airbags and crumple zones etc*.

So how ICE cars are getting to 2-300kg more than that without being considered gross overconsumption I'm honestly a bit bewildered.

*We've pretty much reached the peak of physical safety features in the last 10 years or so, most recent safety developments have been in software/tech.

I know, right. My wife scraped our 1400kg car on a bollard last year, we were cut free from the wreckage and had to run for our lives as our car was engulfed in a fire ball.

The French have a bit of a record of making "silly rules" to maintain thingds "as they should be", and im behind it for the most part.

I think im correct in saying bookshops are not allowed to do "deals" or "offers", to prevent the waterstone's of the world muscling out the small independant book sellers.

The UCi seem to make a lot of bike rules to keep bikes "bike shaped".

An Paris is the home of the City car. The Twingo and the 2CV. Im all for resisting the "arms race" of car size

I think the first vehicle I saw when I got off the train this morning was a cargobike. I can totally buy into the way it’s going.