Parking spaces stretch to fit fat rides

[stcanard]

...when small cars were popular.

Helps to finish that sentence. So the author is simply stating that parking spaces usually match the size of popular cars. Well duh.

What, you want context in quotes? Well then forget about ever working in the media. Geez, informed discussion. Whould'a thunk.

On a slightly different note, I will wade into the safety issue very slightly, with a point about perspective (which I think we all agree on anyway, it seems only the reasonable people are left in this thread, what were the odds of that happening?)

As a bike commuter, my primary concern with traffic is vehicles coming out of a side street and not noticing me. Almost everything else I can predict ahead of time. So what I'm looking at is low speed collisions from the side.

In this case, I actually prefer to be hit by an SUV! The extra height and grill space spreads the impact over my body, and I can take it a lot more (hey all Canadians instinctively lean into a body hit, it's that hockey thing again ) and come out with a few bruises.

With a sub-compact, I am far more concerned about getting a broken leg, beacuse of where it would hit me. If you look at how my leg is attached to my hip(!) on one end and the pedal on the other, it doesn't take much pressure to snap it!

At least that's the theory, I really hope I never have a chance to find out in practice!

 

[Peyote]

Those of you that enjoy scratching and denting people's cars or SUV's when you feel like they parked too close to you, should sit down and think about things for a minute. What you are doing is WRONG.

If the person has a large vehicle and doesn't know how to park it well enough to leave you more room...that sucks. But two wrongs don't make a right, and they're not going to learn anything from the little "lesson" you are trying to teach them. They're going to think that someone was an @sshole and messed up their vehicle...nothing more. Also, so they inconvenienced you a little...maybe even made you have to get in through the passenger's side door. Is that justification for causing hundreds of dollars worth of damage?


Another thing you might want to think about is, they may not have had a choice. One thing I've learned is that when someone is parked too close to you, they may have not had a choice. What if you parked your car, and left it. Then later a bad driver that was three or four spaces away parked over the line. Then as the lot filled up, people had to park off center to be able to fit. Then the person that parks next to you ends up crowding you some. Is it their fault? What if there were no other spaces available, or they were in a hurry? It's not their fault that they had to crowd you, and yet you are committing a crime against them and destroying their property....is that fair to them?


Grow up people...by punishing someone like that you are not teaching them anything if they could have helped the way they parked....and you are running the big risk of damaging an innocent person's car. Way to go, big man.



EDIT: For the record, I drive a Jeep, so I never have to crowd anyone!

 

[Rower_CPU]

As a bike commuter, my primary concern with traffic is vehicles coming out of a side street and not noticing me. Almost everything else I can predict ahead of time. So what I'm looking at is low speed collisions from the side.

In this case, I actually prefer to be hit by an SUV! The extra height and grill space spreads the impact over my body, and I can take it a lot more (hey all Canadians instinctively lean into a body hit, it's that hockey thing again ) and come out with a few bruises.

With a sub-compact, I am far more concerned about getting a broken leg, beacuse of where it would hit me. If you look at how my leg is attached to my hip(!) on one end and the pedal on the other, it doesn't take much pressure to snap it!

At least that's the theory, I really hope I never have a chance to find out in practice!

I'm a cyclist, too, of the off-road variety, though I may be doing more commuting soon. Since I'm a big guy riding a 21" frame I'm more content to roll over a compact than be hit straight on by an SUV. But hey, I never played hockey.

Here's hoping neither one of us has that chance...

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm not doubting your or stcanard's claim; I just would like to see facts rather than anecdotal evidence. Parking spaces seem a lot smaller in my Tacoma than they did in my Metro, but it doesn't mean I think they've all shrunk in the last 3 years.

To be honest I am looking at my relatively long life. When it becomes more difficult to park my old Civic or my current Baja, it is more than anecdotal. When I have spent a better part of my life working in malls and shopping centers and see them shrink the spaces over the last 20+ years, it is more than anecdotal by painting over the old lines and laying lines closer together, it is by definition greater than anecdotal.

We are not talking about the last three years. But more than a decade or better to justify the end profit. Ad to that the societal changes, and you end up with something that doctoral papers will done on.

Even my homeowners association is considering redoing the parking spaces. For back in the '80s the vehicles were wider. And in our neighborhood few can afford the "luxury boats". On most "streets" we are looking at gaining 2 to 4 spaces on each side of the street. And in the "new" economics of multiple families sharing a house, that can mean a parking space in the parking lot or not.

Rest assured as long as your Tacoma was not one of the "super extended" versions. You would be welcomed here.

 

[stcanard]

I'm a cyclist, too, of the off-road variety, though I may be doing more commuting soon.

I am one of the very lucky few who gets to combine them. In the summer (when I'm not "swimming" to work) 1/2 my commute gets to be over nice, tight singletrack

Since I'm a big guy riding a 21" frame I'm more content to roll over a compact than be hit straight on by an SUV. But hey, I never played hockey.

Here's hoping neither one of us has that chance...

I'm small enough it would take one heck of a bunny hop to get me over that compact! I'd do better with the Tom Cruise slide under move

So any ideas on how to convice someone who is terrified of snow to not be scared if I try to ride to work through through < 5cm on the ground? I don't want to be stuck in the car again tomorrow!

Maybe if I go for a ride tonight and prove I still have traction. Hmm, gotta go, bike calls!

 

[Rower_CPU]

I am one of the very lucky few who gets to combine them. In the summer (when I'm not "swimming" to work) 1/2 my commute gets to be over nice, tight singletrack

Very nice.

So any ideas on how to convice someone who is terrified of snow to not be scared if I try to ride to work through through < 5cm on the ground? I don't want to be stuck in the car again tomorrow!

Maybe if I go for a ride tonight and prove I still have traction. Hmm, gotta go, bike calls!

Do you do anything special for your tires (knobbies, studs, etc.)? I haven't had the chance to do too much snow riding yet (San Diego doesn't see much of the white stuff), but I've seen some ride reports on the various bike forums about off road snow rides in the nice powdery stuff that looked good. I'd be more worried about the drivers sliding into me.

 

[stcanard]

]Do you do anything special for your tires (knobbies, studs, etc.)? I haven't had the chance to do too much snow riding yet (San Diego doesn't see much of the white stuff), but I've seen some ride reports on the various bike forums about off road snow rides in the nice powdery stuff that looked good. I'd be more worried about the drivers sliding into me.

We get so little, I don't bother with anything more than knobbies (the average year here will probably see only 2 or 3 days with snow on the ground), and I'm not really experienced in it. Just tried, and it's too icy. Makes for some great mountain bike style riding, but definitely not commuting (especially since I think by tomorrow my gears and brakes will be frozen solid, really need to get a place with a garage)

Hmm, they're forcasting more snow for tomorrow. Anybody got an SUV I can borrow? I promise I'll park carefully

 

[Ugg]

Again, I remind you that the original article states that there has been a trend since the 80's to make parking spots smaller. That is the whole point of my argument: all other things being equal, I would agree that increased parking problems would have to be due to an increased number of larger vehicles.

Given that it is an established fact that parking spots have been getting smaller, I see that as having a greater influence on parking behaviour than SUV's do.

It's true that parking spaces are getting smaller, and I think the major reason for that is economics on the part of builders/developers. Local zoning almost always dictates that there be x amount of spaces per x amount of square footage in a store. Obviously land costs money so it makes sense to cut back as much as possible. However, in the 80s cars were getting smaller and even minivans are about the same size as an average full-sized sedan. So, I don't think your argument flies.

Having been run into twice and clipped a few times while on a bicycle, I can ony say that small cars are better to be hit by and I would gladly be run into by a Civic rather than an SUV. With a Civic you're more likely to go over the car, with an SUV, more likely to go under.

The run ins were by passenger cars, one sorta my fault the other the fault fo the driver. Minimal damage and rode my bike away both times. Three of the clippings were caused by SUVs because they couldn't see me over their hoods.

Doesn't Vancouver have the highest accident rates in Canada? You're a brave man!

 

[cheekyspanky]

What I don't understand are the people in the UK buying H2's - firstly they don't fit in loads of places - whether thats car parks or country roads and then the cost of fuel. It's around 90p a litre at the moment so thats like $6.35 a US gallon!

That H3 looks quite cool, I wonder how much smaller than the H2 it actually is?

Not many people buy an SUV because they HAVE to, thats why most of the manufacturers are now making them into soft roaders which have no real ability off road - BMW X3 etc. It's all about the image. I have no problem with people owning SUV's, just with the people who try to make out they bought it with no consideration of anything other than its sheer ability.

 

[spikeovsky]

i walk.

Well, walking would be great if so many cities weren't designed to be used only with cars. If we want to solve the Problem of the SUV, we have to go back to the 1940s and '50s and slap around a couple of auto executives and urban planners. I'm a city mouse myself, and like living somewhere that lets me walk or bike anywhere I want to go - but I've got family in Alberta (sorta like Canada's Texas), so I know that this doesn't work for everyone.

Personally, I don't really mind pickups or SUVs if they are really going to be used. Central Alberta is truck country, but people *use* them. What pisses me off is seeing a giant, highly-polished SUV with rally lights, snorkels, etc, on the streets of Hong Kong or Beijing. That's just silly.

Beijing's an awful place to walk, though it might get better: they're building about 6 new subway lines set to open before the 2008 Olympics.

 

[spikeovsky]

Poor drivers cause problems, no matter what they're driving ...
I will tell you from my perspective riding my bike home, I have far more problems with Honda Civics thinking they can dart in and out of traffic, thinking "I'm narrow enough I can go around traffic in that bike lane", and driving by me at very dangerous speeds than I do with a Pathfinder trying to do the same.

I agree with your first statement. When cars drive in the bike lane, though, I don't think about what kind of car they are, simply that their owners should be taken away and shot. I think there seems to be a worldwide lack of proper traffic law enforcement, and where the law is enforced, it is often at the expense of those people most in need of its protection (read: cyclists).

Then again, I don't like it when cyclists run red lights, either. And I say this as something of a bike evangelist.

 

[spikeovsky]

So any ideas on how to convice someone who is terrified of snow to not be scared if I try to ride to work through through < 5cm on the ground? I don't want to be stuck in the car again tomorrow!

Maybe if I go for a ride tonight and prove I still have traction. Hmm, gotta go, bike calls!

Tell her not to worry. I rode all winter in Toronto two years in a row on 1" slicks. Gets a bit exciting, but as long as you take it easy and brake early (front brake first, to avoid fishtailing), no problems. I fell a couple of times, but who doesn't? The only real annoyance I ever had was in a near-blizzard when a delivery truck ran me off the road - but I was wearing a helmet, so it was OK. Good luck!

 

[Mr_Ed]

...
But there is a greater deep "hatred" for the class society that is building.
...

You keep bringing up this whole "social class" thing and I just don't see it. I might possibly see the price of a vehicle as something that splits the population between those who can afford it, and those who can't, but SUVs (like most other vehicle classes) include vehicles in a range of prices. Edmunds shows a number of SUV's priced under $20,000.

If someone can't afford a low end SUV, they can't afford anything but a compact/subcompact anyway. If someone can afford a $55,000+ Hummer H2 (ie a "large" SUV), they could just as easily buy a Porsche Boxster, or any number of coupes/sedans from Infinity, Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln, BMW, Benz, etc. and many of those would not fit into a "compact" parking space either. If many of those expensive SUV owners had opted to buy an expensive sedan/coupe instead, would you even be aware enough of the numbers to still be talking about a "social class gulf" in this thread? Is it possible that the fact that you see more of that one class of vehicles on the road is making it easier for you to associate the SUV with "social class"?


Back to the point on the parking space discussion, large vehicles (such as the Suburban to pick one example) have been around for a LONG time. Take a look here, here. Large coupes and sedans have been around a LONG time. When it comes to the history of the automobile (particularly in the United States), compact/subcompact autos are relative "newcomers," not the other way around. The situation we are discussing in this thread only became a problem when the size of parking spaces became smaller. "Stretching" parking spaces now is merely correcting a situation that should not have occurred in the first place.

 

[OutThere]

The Bernardsville, N.J. city council voted last month to increase the size of parking spaces. It is reversing a trend that began in the 1980's to accommodate compact cars. The need is growing to accommodate the large SUV.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-02-parking_x.htm

This is sickening, Americans are just getting fatter and fatter and more scared of everything, increasing their 'need' for fat SUV's to protect them from the heathen invaders, and, well, **** the rest of the people who have small cars. "I'm single and have a ten minute commute through the center of the city, and I never carpool, thus, I need a hummer. This world is dangerous! Can't you see that without my hummer the terrorists would get me?"

 

[Ugg]

If someone can afford a $55,000+ Hummer H2 (ie a "large" SUV), they could just as easily buy a Porsche Boxster, or any number of coupes/sedans from Infinity, Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln, BMW, Benz, etc. and many of those would not fit into a "compact" parking space either.
Back to the point on the parking space discussion, large vehicles (such as the Suburban to pick one example) have been around for a LONG time. Take a look here, here. Large coupes and sedans have been around a LONG time. When it comes to the history of the automobile (particularly in the United States), compact/subcompact autos are relative "newcomers," not the other way around. The situation we are discussing in this thread only became a problem when the size of parking spaces became smaller. "Stretching" parking spaces now is merely correcting a situation that should not have occurred in the first place.

Not all parking spaces are for compact cars so your argument doesn't fly. Also, it's not merely the width and the length that is the issue here but the HEIGHTH!

Yes, the Suburban and other such critters have been around for a long time. It's not how long they've been around it's the sheer numbers that's the issue. Isn't it something like 50% now?

Why should a community be subsidizing the parking for monster sized vehicles? Shouldn't they be paying a premium for on street parking? A couple of subcompacts could easily fit into the same space as an extended cab pickup. Maybe we should alllow drivers of small cars to park free, thereby encouraging common sense over fear.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

You keep bringing up this whole "social class" thing and I just don't see it. I might possibly see the price of a vehicle as something that splits the population between those who can afford it, and those who can't, but SUVs (like most other vehicle classes) include vehicles in a range of prices. Edmunds shows a number of SUV's priced under $20,000.

But it is not the lower priced ones that people get worked up over the most.

If someone can't afford a low end SUV, they can't afford anything but a compact/subcompact anyway. If someone can afford a $55,000+ Hummer H2 (ie a "large" SUV), they could just as easily buy a Porsche Boxster, or any number of coupes/sedans from Infinity, Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln, BMW, Benz, etc. and many of those would not fit into a "compact" parking space either. If many of those expensive SUV owners had opted to buy an expensive sedan/coupe instead, would you even be aware enough of the numbers to still be talking about a "social class gulf" in this thread? Is it possible that the fact that you see more of that one class of vehicles on the road is making it easier for you to associate the SUV with "social class"?

Probably so. If the luxury coupes/sedans were to grow to the width of some of the SUVs out there. "Compact" parking spaces are used in this thread; but the issue is that it is the "normal" sized spaces that are the real discussion point here.

Keep in mind that when I brought of the "class" issue, it came from the POV of living in the DC area. We are probably more skewed towards higher incomes than many other areas of the country. So we might have a greater number of the super SUVs on the road than in less urban areas.

Keep in mind too that we now have more wealth in this nation that probably any other time in our history. By some accounts the Middle Class is shrinking, and moving further down the ladder.

How else do you explain the very deep feelings that some have against the larger SUVs?

Back to the point on the parking space discussion, large vehicles (such as the Suburban to pick one example) have been around for a LONG time. Take a look here, here. Large coupes and sedans have been around a LONG time. When it comes to the history of the automobile (particularly in the United States), compact/subcompact autos are relative "newcomers," not the other way around. The situation we are discussing in this thread only became a problem when the size of parking spaces became smaller. "Stretching" parking spaces now is merely correcting a situation that should not have occurred in the first place.

First there is no mandate that spaces had to stay the same. They shrank with the gas crisis and the need for more fuel efficient cars. Which made them smaller. To say the spaces should not have been made smaller to begin with is short sighted. We then have the issue of social responsibility, from the manufactures, the politicians, and the people. There is no reason that we have so many vehicles that no longer fit in a world that was making sense.

i say lets widen spots, but put them on the far end of the malls and such.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

They can be placed lower in the grill, they can be aimed farther down. In both cases it is a design flaw of the lighting system, not an inherent problem in the vehicle. Xenon headlights also show that such design flaws are a general problem, not specific to a single class of vehicle.

Correct. The issue is that the manufactures are using a loophole by basing SUVs on trucks. And the government has their hands so deep in to the manufactures pockets, they won't doing anything about it.

Hmm, I think you misread my meaning. I read ChipNoVaMac's statement as saying whenever he sees a misparked car next to a misparked SUV he always assumes it's the fault of the SUV. I was pointing out that is a fallacy. Saying whenever you see a misparked car you assume at some point an SUV was at fault, then backing it up by saying that SUV's are causing the problem is a circular logic.

I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I have given up trying to fix blame on bad parking. I was pointing out how I think many people see the issue.

If I have problems with larger SUVs is that they are not friendly to the environment, to the infrastructure, and to public safety. Many of these issues could be tackled by a stronger Congress.

I also have a problem with the "me first" attitude that seems to prevail in todays world. I remember way back when you showed courtesy when in a parking lot and someone was trying to back out. With so many SUVs and Minivans out there now, you rick life and property trying to back out.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Not all parking spaces are for compact cars so your argument doesn't fly. Also, it's not merely the width and the length that is the issue here but the HEIGHTH!

How does it "not fly"? Not all spaces are labeled as intended for compact vehicles but if parking spaces were not smaller today (labeled or not), the "stretching" of parking spaces would not be a "news" story and we would not be having this discussion, would we?

Where I live there are some shopping areas where they have areas with smaller than average (by today's standards) spaces and they post signs that say "Compact Vehicles". Guess what? Not even people in compact vehicles like to park in them if there are other spaces open. In the end, everyone would like to enter/exit their vehicle in relative comfort and safety (where vehicle damage is concerned) regardless of what size vehicle they drive. Just make them all larger like they used to be and don't worry about what kind of car parks in which spot.

As for the height, how is that a parking space problem unless you are in a parking garage?

Yes, the Suburban and other such critters have been around for a long time. It's not how long they've been around it's the sheer numbers that's the issue. Isn't it something like 50% now?

I think your comment is completely ignoring my basic point: SUVs are not the first, nor the only large vehicles in regular use in our roads. What percentage of vehicles are SUVs are of little consequence when we are talking about the size of parking spaces.

Why should a community be subsidizing the parking for monster sized vehicles? Shouldn't they be paying a premium for on street parking? A couple of subcompacts could easily fit into the same space as an extended cab pickup. Maybe we should alllow drivers of small cars to park free, thereby encouraging common sense over fear.

What is your definition of a "monster sized vehicle"? How much wider and longer than the average does it have to be for you to refer to it as a "monster"? One person's "monster" could be someone else's "normal" . . .

How exactly is a community "subsidizing" parking for large vehicles? Presumably the larger vehicle weighs more and spends more on gas (ie. more fuel tax revenue to the state). In most places, the yearly "tag/registration" fee is based on value of vehicle which seems fine, so in reality, the owner of a larger vehicle is paying more taxes on a yearly basis (given similar distances driven, of course).

 

[Mr_Ed]

Probably so. If the luxury coupes/sedans were to grow to the width of some of the SUVs out there. "Compact" parking spaces are used in this thread; but the issue is that it is the "normal" sized spaces that are the real discussion point here.

Keep in mind that when I brought of the "class" issue, it came from the POV of living in the DC area. We are probably more skewed towards higher incomes than many other areas of the country. So we might have a greater number of the super SUVs on the road than in less urban areas.

Keep in mind too that we now have more wealth in this nation that probably any other time in our history. By some accounts the Middle Class is shrinking, and moving further down the ladder.

I understand where you are coming from but I hope you understand where I am coming from: I have difficulty tying the actual size of a vehicle to anything related to "social" or "economic" standing. In the first paragraph of your response quoted above you made it strictly a "size" issue (meaning you would take notice of other vehicles if they were to increase in size) and that is precisely what I think a discussion on parking space dimensions should be about.

How else do you explain the very deep feelings that some have against the larger SUVs?

This is explained by some of the posts here and it has nothing to do with "social" standing. You hear people complaining about SUVs with comments like:
- Visibility ("I can't see around them like I could other vehicles.")
- Intimidation ("I don't feel like I will be safe in my car if I collide with an SUV and there are lots of them out there now.")
- Annoyance factors ("Their headlights are too high for my vehicle and they blind me when they are close behind me.")
- The blanket "Moral Superiority" statement ("Those SUV drivers are jerks because their vehicles are big and wasteful.")

These (and others) are not invalid complaints but they have nothing to do with "social" or "economic" standing of the driver of an SUV with relation to some other driver.

First there is no mandate that spaces had to stay the same. They shrank with the gas crisis and the need for more fuel efficient cars. Which made them smaller. To say the spaces should not have been made smaller to begin with is short sighted. We then have the issue of social responsibility, from the manufactures, the politicians, and the people. There is no reason that we have so many vehicles that no longer fit in a world that was making sense.

Let's be clear about this. They didn't shrink in direct response to the gas crisis. After a number of years with availability of smaller vehicles, someone (or some group) decided parking spaces should be smaller. I would argue that making smaller spaces when so many vehicles in use would not fit properly was "short sighted." As for the "world making sense," I must say, it made more sense to me when we had larger spaces across the board. Much simpler Without claiming actual knowledge of this, I would guess the trend started in commercial parking areas and the motive came down to dollars and cents (more shoppers parking?), not anything more "noble" than that. I believe that logic was flawed because:
a) Larger vehicles still constitute a significant portion of the vehicles on the road
b) Some "shoppers" might drive somewhere else (as I do) if they don't find satisfactory parking. Mind you, I don't drive a truck or SUV but I often find parking spaces that are not to my liking in commercial areas, and I drive on. It's the business' loss.

i say lets widen spots, but put them on the far end of the malls and such.

Yes, but why not make them all the same size? And why would you want to penalize someone just for driving a larger vehicle than you choose to drive? What do we gain by doing that? Instead of folks with small cars complaining on a thread like this one, it will be folks with big cars . . .

 

[OutThere]

And why would you want to penalize someone just for driving a larger vehicle than you choose to drive?.

Because large vehicles (read Suburban, Hummer, and Excursion), are extremely wasteful, and extremely rarely necessary. There are only minimal situations when a) You need such large quantity of people space and b) You need the four wheel drive / off road capabilities. There are people who fall into one of these categories, but there are very few who need both. Most of the time people who have lots of children use that as an excuse for buying a suburban, but, I ask, what is wrong with a minivan? You might say that it doesn't have the same power and strength, but how many of the people who say they need it for people space, also need it for its four wheel drive?

 

[Mr_Ed]

Because large vehicles (read Suburban, Hummer, and Excursion), are extremely wasteful, and extremely rarely necessary. There are only minimal situations when a) You need such large quantity of people space and b) You need the four wheel drive / off road capabilities. There are people who fall into one of these categories, but there are very few who need both. Most of the time people who have lots of children use that as an excuse for buying a suburban, but, I ask, what is wrong with a minivan? You might say that it doesn't have the same power and strength, but how many of the people who say they need it for people space, also need it for its four wheel drive?

The "SUV vs. Mini-van" argument was beaten to death in some other threads so I won't get drawn in to that.

As for your justification for penalizing owners of SUVs, refer to the end of my reply to Ugg. Owners of large vehicles already pay more in fuel taxes to the state for the very reasons you mentioned. Some (though I won't ) could argue that if you are going to segregate parking areas into "small" vs. "large" vehicles, then those who pay more in taxes should get the more convenient parking spots. My solution is simple. Make all spots large.

Then maybe we can stop having these pointless discussions where we pretend we can assess a complete stranger's need or motives for owning a particular vehicle. Just this past Wednesday I went to lunch with some folks from work. One of our admins drove us in her new Mazda mini-van. One of the passengers politely asked why she owned a mini-van. Knowing the person asking the question (and having read this thread earlier) I was pretty sure I knew why he was asking. You see, the admin and her husband have only one 14 year old daughter.

She replied:
a) when they go on vacations they always drive because her husband won't fly and they need space for "stuff" for the trip.
b) She seems to spend a lot of time driving her daughter and her friends around so her previous car was not cutting it.

Is she being "wasteful" when a small car can carry three passengers? It sure looks that way if you don't ask "why" as my colleague did. It's a matter of opinion and you are entitled to yours regarding large vehicles. But it's one thing to have an opinion and quite another to talk about penalizing (or otherwise treating some group inequitably) based on that opinion without taking anything else (like reasons/motives) into account.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Is she being "wasteful" when a small car can carry three passengers? It sure looks that way if you don't ask "why" as my colleague did. It's a matter of opinion and you are entitled to yours regarding large vehicles. But it's one thing to have an opinion and quite another to talk about penalizing (or otherwise treating some group inequitably) based on that opinion without taking anything else (like reasons/motives) into account.

I assume that the Mazda is the MPV. Not what I would call a large vehicle. Just about 6 inches wider than a Civic. Personally I would like to see better highway mpg, yet that could be obtained by a station wagon design. Cargo, that is another matter. An E-Class wagon has nearly the same volume as the MPV does, and gets better milage. And is about the same size.

As to penalizing one group over another. The same can be said that those that choose smaller cars would/will be penalized, for they will either have to park further away themselves or pay higher parking fees since there would be fewer spaces. Just seems to fit "I got mine" attitude that grew in the '90s.

 

[Mr_Ed]

I assume that the Mazda is the MPV. Not what I would call a large vehicle. Just about 6 inches wider than a Civic. Personally I would like to see better highway mpg, yet that could be obtained by a station wagon design. Cargo, that is another matter. An E-Class wagon has nearly the same volume as the MPV does, and gets better milage. And is about the same size.

As to penalizing one group over another. The same can be said that those that choose smaller cars would/will be penalized, for they will either have to park further away themselves or pay higher parking fees since there would be fewer spaces. Just seems to fit "I got mine" attitude that grew in the '90s.

Yes, and an Expedition is "only about 6 inches wider" than an MPV (72.1 vs. 78.7 inches). The question of what is "too big" is highly subjective. That's the reason these discussions seem to drag on with no one actually being persuaded to change their point of view in the end I don't think you will find anyone who would disagree better gas mileage is a good thing. Once upon a time, station wagons were very common. Ironically, the station wagon probably fell out of favor with the public for the same reason some started buying small cars: the gas crunch of the 70's. As sales of certain models fell, the auto manufacturers ceased production. The problem is that many still felt a need to have that much room in a vehicle, so they started buying trucks with cabins and "SUV-like" vehicles like the Jeep Cherokee in droves. Other manufacturers took notice and here we are. Worse yet, some bought a small car for the commute to work but kept a large second vehicle (like station wagon, truck, SUV-like) to do other things the compact is simply not well suited for. Even though there are some station wagons out there, they are few and far between so most look to SUVs or mini-vans.

As for the availability of "fewer spaces" unfairly impacting small car owners, I don't see how. If you make all spaces equal then any potential lack of parking affects everyone equitably. If you meant to say that small car owners are unfairly affected because the "compact parking" areas might disappear, then I would say the compact car owners upset about that are displaying that "I got mine" attitude you talk about.

Gotta go. Going to take a shower (after all, it's Saturday ) and go park my car in a big, fat parking space behind "Tom & Jerry's Lounge" and have a pint. Catch you all on the flip side . . .

 

[EJBasile]

This is sickening, Americans are just getting fatter and fatter and more scared of everything, increasing their 'need' for fat SUV's to protect them from the heathen invaders, and, well, **** the rest of the people who have small cars. "I'm single and have a ten minute commute through the center of the city, and I never carpool, thus, I need a hummer. This world is dangerous! Can't you see that without my hummer the terrorists would get me?"

Alright that makes no sense and actually hummers are not very common to see. How do hummers or SUVs relate to being scared of terrorists.

 

[Ugg]

Alright that makes no sense and actually hummers are not very common to see. How do hummers or SUVs relate to being scared of terrorists.

My take on it is that Americans fear things in general way too much. Whether it be 2 inches of new snow (I'd rather be in a front wheel drive sub compact than an SUV then), the sky falling, their neighbors, etc. How else can you explain gated communities, guns and SUVS? Fear, pure and simple.