
Berlin crash prompts calls to ban SUVs from German cities - mrzool
https://www.thelocal.de/20190909/deadly-berlin-accident-spurs-debate-on-banning-suvs-from-city-centres
======
lm28469
Just ban all personal cars from city centers, replace every 5 banned cars with
1 electric taxi and make it free for people with a public transportation
subscription.

Boom, every single "cars in city" problems solved. I'm sure that even with
100% state subsidised taxi rides it would still be a net positive if you
consider costs of health, pollution, accidents, insurances, &c.

~~~
bakuninsbart
This is definetely the way to move forward, but here in Berlin it would be
political suicide for now. The steps to take (some of which are already being
taken):

\- Introduce good bike lanes, narrowing down streets. Give bikes more priority
in traffic rules (can't really be done in Berlin since they are federal
rules).

\- Introduce an inner city car toll. Offset losses to businesses that
absolutely require it through tax breaks. (construction, delivery drivers,
taxis etc.)

\- Close down non-essential streets completely during most hours (4-6am free
for deliveries etc.). Reduce parking/make drivers pay for parking.

At the same time, you need to make it easier for people to switch:

\- Reduce prices of public transport for residents. In Berlin they want to
introduce a yearly ticket for 365€, that is perfect.

\- Increase availability of public transport, and make all busses electric.

\- Introduce large parking spaces at key points in the far suburbs of the
city. Parking there costs a fee that also works as a day ticket for public
transport. Express busses take you to the city centre/other key infrastructure
points.

Some of these are already being worked on in Berlin, otherwise I know are on
the agenda and being discussed. In Berlin specifically though, some points
might not be legal. Inner city toll for example might be prohibited by federal
law.

E: One important point I forgot: Cars account for 25% of all emissions in
Berlin. On the local level, getting rid of cars is the best thing we can do to
combat climate change.

~~~
dorgo
>Reduce parking/make drivers pay for parking.

They did that. 2€ per hour. One of the reasons I don't have a car. But I would
rather walk two hours to the office and two hours back before I go by tram /
public transport. There are many reasons/problems but one is: it is
overcrowded and I don't like people. I go by bike or ebike instead.

~~~
CydeWeys
2€ per hour isn't remotely high enough, and doesn't come close to covering the
actual costs of all that real estate that a parking spot uses up. Rates as
high as 20€ per hour are likely necessary for the most popular neighborhoods.

The cost of parking needs to be high enough such that you can remove a lot of
spots and convert them to other uses (i.e. protected bike lanes, commercial
loading zones), and still keep multiple free spots per block so that people
willing to pay the high prices don't need to drive around to find spots.

~~~
dorgo
If I could pay 20€ per hour maybe I would advocate for the same thing. Let's
build more (underground) parking decks which could be afforded by more than
the richest 1%?

~~~
mikepurvis
I think the point is that perhaps only the richest 1% actually need to own
their own private automobiles. With good enough alternatives, it _is_ possible
to push car ownership up out of the middle class, and that's ultimately what's
needed.

Otherwise, the whole thing is just half measures that make it harder for poor
people to get around.

------
tjansen
What the article doesn't mention: the "SUV" was a Porsche Macan, a compact SUV
that's smaller than most german station wagons and about the size of an
average family van. They just say 'Porsche SUV', and most people think it's
the more common Porsche Cayenne.

~~~
cmroanirgo
I'm a little confused. The article talks repeatedly about _large_ SUVs:

> _German politicians are demanding regulations to keep large SUVs (sport
> utility vehicles) out of inner cities_

> _" We need an upper limit for large SUVs in city centres,”_

The article further elucidates:

> _Following the incident, several politicians and traffic experts called into
> question the rising popularity of the vehicles - characterized by their
> broad shape and several off-road features_

So it seems that SUVs are being particularly targeted, seemingly because of
their features.

So, looking up the measurements [0], it seems that the Porche Macan is just
under 4.7m long and 2m wide. By my standards (Oz) that's a pretty large
vehicle!

[0]
[https://www.automobiledimension.com/models/porsche/macan-201...](https://www.automobiledimension.com/models/porsche/macan-2019)

~~~
tjansen
If the Macan is a too large, that would mean that practically all family cars
are too large. The groups that have been quoted in the article were demanding
a 'large SUV ban' even before this accident. Now they are using this accident
to promote their agenda, conveniently leaving out that it wasn't a 'large SUV'
that caused it. 'Porsche SUV' just sounds like a large SUV, because the
Porsche Macan is relatively new and not as well-known as the Porsche Cayenne.
The Cayenne is probably the most hated vehicle in Germany, at least in those
circles.

~~~
Retric
It’s more about the height of the front grill than the total weight. Cars
outweigh humans so much in a collision that increasing weight is not
important. However, vehicle shape makes a real difference in low speed
collisions.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
> an SUV drove into a sidewalk

As usual, this us worded as "the car did it", also known as the "absent
driver" style. More examples here
[https://twitter.com/absentdriver](https://twitter.com/absentdriver)

~~~
aequitas
Makes sense for reporters to play it safe I think, as what the car did is a
clearly observable fact. Wording it like "The driver drove his car into the
sidewalk" portraits the sense the driver deliberately performed the action.
While other circumstances might be a play. Better to wait for official
investigation to clarify this.

~~~
robben1234
It doesn't matter if it's deliberate action or not, cars do not drive
themselves into accidents. The same logic, the car not driver, used for
subject of the ban. Ban reckless driving and dangerous behavior.

SUV ban won't stop accidents like these. At best they will achieve less
injuries because the cars being drove into pedestrians gonna get smaller.

------
imgabe
Why focus on SUVs in particular? Cars in general don't belong in inner cities.

~~~
Ballas
Yeah, I fail to see how the car being an SUV is a factor in the article. Would
a smaller car have made a difference? It would have needed to be a lot lighter
to be stopped by the traffic light. (the influence of mass being linear and
that of speed being cubic)

~~~
jakobegger
SUVs also tend to have much more powerful engines.

If the accident was really caused by an epileptic seizure (as the media
speculate), a smaller car with a less powerful engine wouldn't have
accelerated as quickly as that Porsche Macan.

~~~
chooseaname
But not all SUVs are Porsches. Plenty of smaller cars accelerate much more
quickly than SUVs.

------
lnsru
It’s same political show playing people’s fears. Same insanity with disabling
nuclear power plants (ready to be downvoted!). Jealous people now will vote
for the good party proposing to punish the bad riches with SUVs. SUVs are also
problem number one during climate warming, another reason to ban them
according latest headlines in German newspapers.

I was believer of the democracy, but this behavior of politicians is just
ugly. Play with fears, go with the trend punishing riches and save the poor!
That’s the recipe to win next elections. This is easy way! Providing laws for
working from home and reducing traffic is beyond competency of these people.

Plus don’t forget aging population, I am always scared when I see these 75+
years olds driving big powerful cars. In fact I have friends in this age group
and I would like to see them in a taxi instead with their own cars.

~~~
wbl
SUVs do more damage to pedestrians and limit driver visibility of the road.
Children can't be seen over the hood.

~~~
djrogers
> Children can't be seen over the hood.

That's not really a valid point - any child close enough to be invisible to a
driver is far too close for the driver to avoid. A child more than a few feet
away can easily be seen by the driver of an SUV, let alone a small oen like a
Macan.

~~~
ahartmetz
Small children get run over in parking lots at really low speeds.

~~~
CydeWeys
And driveways, on-street parking, etc. Plenty of children have been crushed to
death by vehicles traveling under 1 mph.

------
ChuckNorris89
Germany was the country of the eatates(Kombi) since they were the cars of the
working class family man, economical and practical.

Don't know what changed in the last decade but they're a rare sight these
days, everyone seems to only want SUVs of all sizes instead which are less
practical and less economical than estates.

Heck, even Volvo's famous practical _boxy_ estates are nearly vanished and
replaced with its more expensive SUVs.

What happened to European drivers? Maybe it's the perceived "better safety".

~~~
polskibus
You sit higher, and you see more - that's why people like driving SUVs.
Problem is that lights from SUVs often blind people in sedans - they are often
misconfigured or badly fixed.

~~~
sliken
You see "more" as in further down the road. But much less up close, as
evidenced by new owners running over their own children in their own
driveways.

On a bike I've learned to give minivans and SUVs a wide berth, they just seem
way less predictable and less likely to see a bicyclist.

------
godshatter
I wish people's first thoughts when a tragedy happens wasn't to have the
government ban something. This ban idea came up because one person driving an
SUV killed some pedestrians in a horrific accident. What actually happened
there? Would the same accident not have happened if the same person was
driving an economy car rather than an SUV? Was it the great size of the SUV
that made the accident happen? What was the root cause of the accident? Could
something be done to make it safer for pedestrians in the future, whether it's
from SUVs or smaller cars, that didn't involve banning one entire class of
vehicles?

~~~
jdashg
The article mentions these discussions. One point it makes is that a smaller
car would likely have been stopped sooner, while the SUV plowed through a
traffic mast, bollards, and a construction fence. Cars are also safer for
pedestrians than taller, wider SUVs, as well as SUVs being better at minor
offroading.

------
Reason077
There may be sound environmental reasons for restricting SUVs in city centres,
but _all_ types of motor vehicles are just as capable of harming pedestrians
if misused, driven carelessly, or the driver suffers a medical event. This
could just have easily been a garbage truck, delivery van, taxi, or private
car and the result would have been the same.

The solution that will really improve safety is advanced AEB (autonomous
emergency braking) which can detect pedestrians and cyclists, lane departure,
etc and automatically apply the brakes to prevent a collision or reduce its
severity.

~~~
lawlessone
>This could just have easily been a garbage truck, delivery van, taxi, or
private car and the result would have been the same.

If i had to be hit by a vehicle i would rather get hit by mini than hit by a
bin truck, i don't know about you?

~~~
tyingq
If you mean as a pedestrian, lots of variables there, so who knows? The bin
truck has more room underneath it.

~~~
Reason077
Trucks in Europe are designed to _prevent_ things going under the truck, with
mandatory under-run protection bars. You definitely would not want to end up
underneath one!

There was a similar tragic incident in Glasgow in 2014 involving a bin truck,
where the driver suffered a seizure. Several pedestrians killed and many
injured.

------
jillesvangurp
This happened 200m from where I live. It was pretty bad. I think they
initially considered this might have been a terrorist attack and they
basically sent everything with wheels and sirens to the scene. I'm not joking.
Dozens of police vehicles; fire trucks, and ambulances. The whole area was
blocked for traffic most of the night.

It's not yet clear completely what happened but knowing the street and local
situation, I can make an educated guess that this guy was looking to make it
past the green/orange light for the pedestrian crossing, swerved left to avoid
some traffic/obstacles near the construction site on his side of the road
before the crossing and then lost control before plowing over the traffic
light (destroyed completely) into four people waiting to cross. One possible
reason for him having to swerve left may have been some traffic emerging from
the side road (no traffic light there). This would be hard to see if you are
driving way too fast. Also there's a construction site with some scaffolding
right before that crossing; which further reduces visibility. They had an
temporary traffic light there for a few weeks recently but it was removed
again.

The problem is not SUVs as such but a culture of unsafe driving being OK and
the police looking the other way as a matter of policy (because car lobbies).

The accident happened 150m from a police station on the same street. If the
driver knew that; he apparently did not care and in all likelihood was
speeding anyway. Cars in Berlin jump red lights, double park, and speed
throughout the city with a very low chance of getting caught. So, this is not
unusual. On an average bike ride through the city you'll see all of that
happening multiple times. Most crossings with traffic lights don't have
cameras. I've never seen a speed camera in Berlin; I'm not even sure there are
any at all. The local culture is "it's all fine". Drivers behave accordingly.
Also, the fines are pretty low if you do get caught compared to other
countries.

Another issue is that Berlin does not seem to have safety very high on the
agenda when doing construction work. The road in question went through a
lengthy and expensive reconstruction project that took something like five
years that was only finished a few years ago. This was a great and missed
opportunity to make the road safer. This crossing definitely was poorly
designed. You have two roads crossing each other there without traffic lights
and then a traffic light right after the crossing just for the pedestrian
crossing.

------
t34543
Very disappointed in the opportunistic politician. All cars pose a similar
risk. Whether it’s a SUV or regular car isn’t really material.

------
om3n
What if you have a large family, and need a large vehicle? This seems like a
narrow and potentially discriminatory thing to do.

~~~
martius
There are plenty of family-friendly cars which are not SUVs.

------
n1000
Recently I visited a historical hydro power plant, which is still operational.
The operators were in the process of adding huge shields and fences around the
flywheels due to safety regulations to protect visitors. Apparently they had
been only fenced off by a rope and the faith in humans‘ self preservation
instinct for the last 100 years. However, when i saw those fences, it struck
me as very odd why this is not mandatory on every road. The amount if kinetic
energy of those flywheels is certainly comparable to a 1-2 ton car moving at
30+ km/h.

~~~
djmobley
In London, authorities have been doing the opposite—removing pedestrian guard
rails.

One study [1] found this has resulted in a significant (56 percent) decrease
in collisions resulting in deaths or serious injuries.

[1]
[http://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-2274-1718/Pedestrian%20railings%20...](http://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-2274-1718/Pedestrian%20railings%20removal%20collisions%20analysis%20%28no%20stats19%29.pdf)

~~~
akadruid1
Presumably this means the new "malicious vehicle barriers" on the bridges will
soon have killed more people than the terror attacks they are "preventing
repeats" of.

Apparently post-9/11 security theatre pushed so many people out of planes and
into long distance driving that the additional road deaths overtook the 9/11
death toll in a few months.

------
dominicl
This is somewhat a logical reaction, when realizing that a smaller car would
have reduced the fatalities. In this regard I believe there is going to be an
inflection point in the adoption of autonomous driving. As soon as autonomous
driving is becoming safer than the _worst_ human drivers, there should
logically be calls following to ban "non-computer-assisted human driving",
especially within densely populated cities. Similar of how gas stoves without
flame failing device have been banned.

~~~
Reason077
We can significantly reduce the number, and severity, of accidents like this
with advanced AEB (autonomous emergency braking) systems. It's much easier to
implement AEB which can respond to lane departure, pedestrians in the
vehicle's path, etc than to go all the way to fully autonomous driving, which
remains an unsolved AI challenge.

In Europe, AEB is mandatory on all new vehicles receiving type approval from
2020. In the US, it will be implemented on all new private vehicles from 2022.

------
HunOL
I am disgusted with society and the way they want ban everything for sake of
alleged safety.

------
rad_gruchalski
Talk about a knee jerk reaction. Ban, ban, ban seems to be an answer to
everything in Germany.

~~~
tilolebo
So, can one say that they... Autobahn?

------
Braighni
From the article.

"You can't just say: SUV is basically more dangerous than [other types of
vehicles]," accident researcher Siegfried Brockmann from the Gesamtverband der
Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft (Association of the German Insurance
Industry) told DPA.

~~~
jdashg
"told DPA.

Speed and the type of collision would have more influence than weight, he
added. In the Berlin incident, however, the traffic light mast might have
stopped a smaller car."

------
mc32
Small car or large car, both will do damage to people. Yes it’s harder to stop
a large car, but a person or persons will not stop the travel of a small car
either.

I’m not a fan of those monstrosities but I think banning them is a
psychological overreaction to this incident.

------
holri
Why are there no crash tests with pedestrians and cyclists dummys for
homologation?

------
mfer
> after veering onto a sidewalk

Am I the only one seeing a problem with someone driving on the sidewalk? Did
this somehow become acceptable?

I've driven large trucks and not been forced onto a sidewalk. Maybe I'm
missing something.

~~~
otoburb
> _Am I the only one seeing a problem with someone driving on the sidewalk?
> Did this somehow become acceptable?_

You're not the only one agreeing that driving on the sidewalk is/was
unacceptable. But the article mentions the following which may indicate that
this was not deliberate:

>> _It is thought that the driver could have had a medical emergency, such as
an epileptic seizure according to the latest police findings, causing him to
accelerate at a fast speed._

------
emilfihlman
This is pretty damn stupid and not grounded in any fact.

------
whenchamenia
And I thought germans were the logical ones. Can we stop rushing to ban
everything?

------
donastuto
Ein dicker, fetter SUV und der Direktor der Deutschen Umwelthilfe am Steuer!
Das passt ja nun auch nicht so wirklich! Wie sagt man: Sie predigen Wasser und
trinken Wein! So sind sie, unsere auch so tollen Saubermänner, die uns als
Vorbilder verkauft werden!

------
techer
These are known as ‘Chelsea Tractors’ in London...

~~~
ryanlol
This was a Macan, not a Cayenne.

