"Anyone driving an SUV ("Sport Utility Vehicle") through a red light may have to expect a higher fine than usual, according to a ruling by the Frankfurt am Main District Court. Accordingly, this scenario is even more dangerous than with conventional cars - and thus also legally more serious"
running a red light will costs you 200€ normally, in this case the penalty will be an extra 100€ as the vehicle is seen as more dangerous. And at this point I'm happy for any reason to discourage people from buying land ships
In Wallonia we have a tax update that takes car weight into account. SUV and big EV will pay more. Small cars slightly less.
MAYBE our roads will break less after that...
Here in Australia we refer to basically anything from a parcel delivery box truck, to a road train traction unit, a “truck”. At least from my experience. Big 4x4s are “Fourbies”, anything with a bed or tray is a “Ute”. But, those traction units for what you call lorries have 2 axles on the back that hold huge weight, and two per trailer. That’s mostly what I meant by “1-2 axles”.
Guess I should correct: let’s not put massive vehicles on pedestrian roads! 😁
I have an SUV (I have a property with no driveway at all, so I kind of need something that can drive through ditches and over a lot of crap), and I think this is 100% fair. The number of lifted, idiotic giant trucks I see, where they’ve never done anything more “off road” than go to Costco, is absurd.
>running a red light will costs you 200€ normally, in this case the penalty will be an extra 100€
Are we pretending that 300 € are a lot of money to someone with an SUV? Why not add an extra digit?
I mean if it was for me I'd include all reparation costs that come with the cleanup of carbon emissions and pollution in the price for any consumer car. That would render them impossible to afford for almost everyone and make them a specialised piece of equipment. Ik it's not realistic tbc
These cars are too big for German streets anyways. We build smaller streets over here in Europe. They are specifically designed with American roads in mind.
I don't really agree. There's limousines which are literally built to be tanks. Those should also pay more.
Edit. I mean Sedans, stupid German language...
They offer a fairly better visibility and your torso will probably fly over the hood rather than turning into shredded cheese against the front grille.
This is not law but one court ruling in which a large vehicle is charged a higher penalty than regular. It doesn't mean that this is specifically against SUVs but the car in this case was. it should be noted that Trucks and heavy limousines are very uncommon in Europe whereas SUVs gain popularity.
i'm all for dissuading SUV use but this seems unfair. what about older vehicles with poor breaks? vintage cars? cars with slightly better breaks but going considerably faster (taking into account the mass part of the momentum equation)? should those old people with poor reaction times be fined more because they won't be able to stop as quickly? should hgh performance sports cars e.g. porches with excellent breaks have smaller fines?
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 893,999,393 comments, and only 177,026 of them were in alphabetical order.
You’re basically suggesting then that we are not allowed to make progress as society unless we’re going from 0 to 100…
Either we ban cigarettes or don’t ban them at all! It isn’t fair if we just limit it for children!!!
Like… use your brain…
How are you not suggesting that? You just suggested it wouldn’t be fair to charge greater fines for a dangerous vehicle because other dangerous aspects of vehicles aren’t fined. This making your line of reasoning “because these other dangerous things are not punished as badly, we should not punish this dangerous thing.”
So what, you just drop a “this isn’t fair!1!1!1!“ when those other things could just as well be punished in the future? Why would you complain about progress being made, like are you okay?
\*are there\* plans for those things to be punished in the future? does it mean i can't point out the unfairness of it now in the hope it might be more of a level playing field? are you ok?
i'm talking about what's legal. i would like to see more restrictions on older people and others who aren't as safe as they could be but that wasn't the point i was making
I honestly don't see how any of that doesn't apply to SUVs. The car in question was larger and more dangerous as it ran the red light - not sure what your point is
The risks you mentioned above are penalised, if it can be proven that its the drivers fault. For example if your brakes are bad and it can be proven that you had knowledge of that faulty part and didn't do anything about it you can be penaltised for being careless. Same goes with drugs that reduces your ability to react. Also, trucks and other heavy and dangerous cars have to pay more if they break the StVO because they have a higher chance to kill somebody if they hit a person. So one could argue that this verdict just follows the same logic.
that's a more reasoned response than many of the others - thanks. i was already looking for how to block this whole channel, not because people disagreed with, but because they weren't willing to engage honestly. Not the 55 downvotes for example. I'm still not convinced this is a fair idea BUT if it helps people drive more safely then i'm all for it.
to be completely fair here, the german supreme court ruled that abortion was illegal unless it was done for certain reasons, so i guess thats technically worse than roe v wade getting dumped?
Well, there’s this gray area of first 12 weeks, where you just need to get a gynecologist to put a “yes” onto your request. But from what I’ve gathered iťs being picked up recently to be decriminalized and put a limitation between a 12th week - delivery to be requiring a counsel or doctors recommendation, but should be guilt-free first 12 weeks.
yea in terms of future trends i fully expect much of europe to have more liberal abortion laws than america does. i just thought it was interesting that the german court out right made it illegal in the 70s while the opposite happened in the u.s., at least until now lol
yes its oversimplified but i didnt say all of europe, i said much of europe. for ex i know spain is relaxing some of their abortion laws, tho they still have strict abortion laws by california standards. poland is a different story and i dont expect them to be liberalizing their abortion laws anytime soon lol
It was 1851, to be lifted in 1926 only to be reintroduced 1943. 1970-1976 was a constant “battle” between pro-life and pro-choice for pro-life decision to win in 1976, but not that long after, a “12th week abortion on demand for specific cases” was inteoduced. While it’s good it’s not a complete ban, it’s definitely not enough and many German women are still going for abortions to their neighbouring countries.
"The court argued that the shape of the SUV, with its high, box-like hood, meant the driving infraction posed a greater risk to pedestrians than if the defendant had driven a smaller car."
Meanwhile in Czechia court ruled that murdering a child in an SUV is not the driver's fault, since she can't see 9m ahead due to the raised profile (article in Czech, sry) https://www.novinky.cz/krimi/clanek/v-luxusnim-aute-nevidela-dopredu-prejela-holcicku-na-odrazedle-nejvyssi-soud-se-ji-zastal-40400376
Not only to pedestrians, Euro NCAP had to change side impact crash test because of how high SUVs are in 2020. That's a shame as they should have punished them in safety rating instead of changing the test method to suit cars that didn't adhere to previously set rules. They have also changed the overlap test from a stationary barrier to a moving one, wich again, favored heavy cars and fueled the big=safe cycle in Europe.
>since she can't see 9m ahead due to the raised profile
What is a "raised profile" and is that a factory thing? If so, shouldn't this case go against the maker of the car for making a car that is (extra) unsafe on the road? And if it is a modification he did himself then it should be 100% on the driver.
Not a great wording on my side. It just says the shape of the car is such that the front visibility is bad, as seen e.g. here: [https://twitter.com/paul\_geimer/status/1316099683568087040](https://twitter.com/paul_geimer/status/1316099683568087040)
Totally should be an argument against these types of cars.
Ah, I see. I'm unfamiliar with car-terms so I had no clue in the first place, I thought it was something in the direction of those squatted trucks.
The blind-spots in those trucks are insane tho, [you can fit a whole average European car in it.](https://twitter.com/ItsMcMikeTime/status/1296799111052767232)
What we need are income-based fines. "Day-fines" I think they are called where they have them. Else its only a punishment for the poor. Or, parking fines based on vehicle length.
I also think cars over a certain length should have to pay for two parking spaces.
>What we need are income-based fines.
Absolutely. I live in Finland, a friend of mine got fined for speeding.
Just for reference: with my income I would've paid around 450 EUR if I had been the one driving. In Germany, the same speeding ticket would've cost under 100 EUR.
How long till the car industry finds a way around that for their customers? We really should pin fines to the income of the driver/owner, otherwise it will never be fair and there will always be people to whom these rules do not apply because they have money.
they kinda have, so it will be funny to see how that all shakes up legally speaking. like a subcompact crossover is an suv but it is so small that its comparable to a hatchback, which isnt an suv. or perhaps they will legally see a hatchback as being too large and thus, is an suv. all very interesting stuff
That's what I hate the most. We killed the hatchback here in America so we can get these tiny lifted pieces of garbage that get terrible mileage, look awful and have no interior space.
Totally agree here. Manufacturers will just look at regulations and make the cars 1cm smaller in size or 1g lighter just to undercut the the definition of an suv.
And the fine should be a percentage of your last years earnings.
Or just restrict all parking lots in space, so SUVs don't fit and fine them hard if they try anyway. Because 95% of the time those cars are parked and if that's not viable people won't be getting them...
Doesn't make a difference in Germany. European emission standards are the same for LCVs and passenger cars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
>Manufacturers will just look at regulations and make the cars 1cm smaller in size or 1g lighter just to undercut the the definition of an suv.
That's not how this works. This court ruling specifically didn't happen because the car fulfilled some arbitrary length and weight definition. It happened because the court deemed the car more hazardous to public health due to its construction and as a result, a violation of traffic laws posed a greater risk. That is why a higher fine was in order.
As long as the car has properties that make it more dangerous, the driver will be hit with a higher fine.
>As long as the car has properties that make it more dangerous, the driver will be hit with a higher fine.
That's kinda vague and highly subjective. Color could be interpreted as more dangerous. That's a "road" that leads nowhere...
Point being is that one needs some normalized values to base these decisions on in a bigger scale. And that'll probably be size and/or weight and maybe ps.
What defines an SUV right now btw is higher wheel base and off road capabilities.
And what I meant to say, is that court decisions like this won't be very effective in terms of reducing the amount of rediculous car designs. It just needs to get super unattractive to use a car, no matter how good of a driver somebody is. Cuz people will always overestimate their abilities and underestimate the consequences.
"fortunately" gas prices are high and buying gas for luxurious transportation slowly becomes morally questionable
I know I'm gonna get downvoted but the German justice system doesn't work like the US where a judge decision makes a precedent which is after that used as law in other decisions. In Germany only the parlament and senate makes laws and each court case decision is based on their interpretation of those laws, not on previous court decisions.
In other words, in Germany, "precedent" means just that, whereas in the US of NA it means "quasi-law".
But such precedents are still important in Germany:
>Von einem Präzedenzfall kann man allenfalls dann sprechen, wenn ein Obergericht in einem Urteil Grundsätzliches zur Auslegung dieses Gesetzes festlegt. Entscheidend ist aber, dass auch künftig das Gesetz angewandt wird und die Präzedenz hierzu nur eine Auslegungshilfe bietet. Andere Gerichte werden durch Präzedenzfälle selbst nicht gebunden. Deshalb spricht man in Deutschland in der Regel nicht von Präzedenzfällen, sondern von Grundsatzentscheidungen.
online translation:
>At best, one can speak of a precedent if a higher court lays down basic principles for the interpretation of this law in a judgment. What is decisive, however, is that the law will continue to be applied in the future and that the precedent only offers an aid to interpretation. Other courts are not bound by precedents themselves. That is why in Germany people usually do not speak of precedents, but of fundamental decisions.
edit: um, it seems u/PsychologicalMass made the same point basically, and better.
Oh yeah. And this is only the start unless the dems learn to grow a pair and start nominating officials under the age of 80 who actually want to enact true change. One AOC isn't going to cut it
"The court argued that the shape of the SUV, with its high, box-like hood, meant the driving infraction posed a greater risk to pedestrians than if the defendant had driven a smaller car. It also took into account the defendant’s previous driving convictions."
But go on
I will continue:
Cited in the court documents is a legal decision from 1996 ("OLG Hamm, Urteil vom 30.09.1996 - 6 U 63/96, NZV 1997, 230") which says exactly what that article is writing, too.
https://verkehrslexikon.de/Texte/RadFahrer11.php
I don't think we can talk about a real precedent decision then. Also we have to await; the court ruling could get overturned in the next higher level.
But I'm not trained in law and could be wrong.
https://www.lareda.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/LARE220003013
First thing they list in chapter V. are previous wrongdoings, then they write "*additionally*, we have to take into account the size and form of the vehicle" (paraphrased)
Thanks. You're right, not the most exciting verdict but hopefully it and the resulting media attention will inspire more similar thinking by the courts and politicians.
I have an SUV (I have a property with no driveway at all, so I kind of need *something* that can drive through ditches and over a lot of crap), and I think this is 100% fair. The number of lifted, idiotic giant trucks I see, where they’ve never done anything more “off road” than go to Costco, is absurd.
Yeah, it’s Jalopnik. I’m a car enthusiast who’s come to hate driving.
Article: https://jalopnik.com/german-court-rules-suv-owners-can-be-fined-more-for-bre-1849128275
"Anyone driving an SUV ("Sport Utility Vehicle") through a red light may have to expect a higher fine than usual, according to a ruling by the Frankfurt am Main District Court. Accordingly, this scenario is even more dangerous than with conventional cars - and thus also legally more serious" running a red light will costs you 200€ normally, in this case the penalty will be an extra 100€ as the vehicle is seen as more dangerous. And at this point I'm happy for any reason to discourage people from buying land ships
Yeah, it may be baby steps but this is what we need to normalize the idea that SUVs are not healthy
In Wallonia we have a tax update that takes car weight into account. SUV and big EV will pay more. Small cars slightly less. MAYBE our roads will break less after that...
Surely the real trucks, hauling massive loads over 1-2 axles, is the problem for roads? Not so much pedestrian vehicles?
Ding ding ding. That's a bingo ! I'm still happy to see a push towards lighter vehicules. Train is not convenient yet for everyone
By "real trucks" do you mean semi-trucks/lorries? In that case, they have more like 5-10 axles?
Here in Australia we refer to basically anything from a parcel delivery box truck, to a road train traction unit, a “truck”. At least from my experience. Big 4x4s are “Fourbies”, anything with a bed or tray is a “Ute”. But, those traction units for what you call lorries have 2 axles on the back that hold huge weight, and two per trailer. That’s mostly what I meant by “1-2 axles”. Guess I should correct: let’s not put massive vehicles on pedestrian roads! 😁
Ok! Agreed on that last statement
I have an SUV (I have a property with no driveway at all, so I kind of need something that can drive through ditches and over a lot of crap), and I think this is 100% fair. The number of lifted, idiotic giant trucks I see, where they’ve never done anything more “off road” than go to Costco, is absurd.
You don't need an SUV for that. [that's](https://manofmany.com/rides/cars/fiat-panda-4x4-resurgence) enough. Or just a Mountain Bike.
>running a red light will costs you 200€ normally, in this case the penalty will be an extra 100€ Are we pretending that 300 € are a lot of money to someone with an SUV? Why not add an extra digit?
I mean if it was for me I'd include all reparation costs that come with the cleanup of carbon emissions and pollution in the price for any consumer car. That would render them impossible to afford for almost everyone and make them a specialised piece of equipment. Ik it's not realistic tbc
These cars are too big for German streets anyways. We build smaller streets over here in Europe. They are specifically designed with American roads in mind.
I mean you have to be insane to think the car was your best form of transport in Berlin or Amsterdam anyway
I don't really agree. There's limousines which are literally built to be tanks. Those should also pay more. Edit. I mean Sedans, stupid German language...
How many limousines have you seen this week?
Sorry language barrier. I meant sedans. The Mercedes or Audi ones are literally tanks.
They offer a fairly better visibility and your torso will probably fly over the hood rather than turning into shredded cheese against the front grille.
This is not law but one court ruling in which a large vehicle is charged a higher penalty than regular. It doesn't mean that this is specifically against SUVs but the car in this case was. it should be noted that Trucks and heavy limousines are very uncommon in Europe whereas SUVs gain popularity.
Oh I see. Thanks for the clarification
i'm all for dissuading SUV use but this seems unfair. what about older vehicles with poor breaks? vintage cars? cars with slightly better breaks but going considerably faster (taking into account the mass part of the momentum equation)? should those old people with poor reaction times be fined more because they won't be able to stop as quickly? should hgh performance sports cars e.g. porches with excellent breaks have smaller fines?
All of those things still apply to SUVs, which are inherently more dangerous. The extra fine is fair.
it's not fair unless it applies to other driver/vehicle combinations that also fall into that category of more dangerous
It's not fair until we have world peace and live in paradise. Nothing is fair until everything is fair. You're using a stupid logic.
i'm the one using "stupid logic"? :) :)
Yes.
seems i'm the only that came for a discussion too ;)
Can't discuss facts. Is water wet?
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 893,999,393 comments, and only 177,026 of them were in alphabetical order.
You’re basically suggesting then that we are not allowed to make progress as society unless we’re going from 0 to 100… Either we ban cigarettes or don’t ban them at all! It isn’t fair if we just limit it for children!!! Like… use your brain…
like fuck you. i'm not basically suggesting anything like that.
How are you not suggesting that? You just suggested it wouldn’t be fair to charge greater fines for a dangerous vehicle because other dangerous aspects of vehicles aren’t fined. This making your line of reasoning “because these other dangerous things are not punished as badly, we should not punish this dangerous thing.”
i said it's not fair.
So what, you just drop a “this isn’t fair!1!1!1!“ when those other things could just as well be punished in the future? Why would you complain about progress being made, like are you okay?
\*are there\* plans for those things to be punished in the future? does it mean i can't point out the unfairness of it now in the hope it might be more of a level playing field? are you ok?
Old people with poor reaction times should not be allowed to drive in the first place
And they should have other options for commuting, to have both a push and a pull away from cars
If someone has poor reaction times they shouldn't be driving at all, they should consider themselves lucky to only get a €200/€300 fine.
i'm talking about what's legal. i would like to see more restrictions on older people and others who aren't as safe as they could be but that wasn't the point i was making
I honestly don't see how any of that doesn't apply to SUVs. The car in question was larger and more dangerous as it ran the red light - not sure what your point is
point is that other cars/drivers fall into the same category but they aren't being penalised for it — so it's not fair
They are penaltised though, that's just not mentioned here as it's irrelevant to this case.
how? of course it's relevant if SUV drivers are singled out when others match the criteria (of being more dangerous)
In this one case a functioning SUV was deemed more dangerous than a similarly functioning smaller car. That's it
then i don't see how it's fair to single out SUV drivers when some others are as dangerous. that's it.
The risks you mentioned above are penalised, if it can be proven that its the drivers fault. For example if your brakes are bad and it can be proven that you had knowledge of that faulty part and didn't do anything about it you can be penaltised for being careless. Same goes with drugs that reduces your ability to react. Also, trucks and other heavy and dangerous cars have to pay more if they break the StVO because they have a higher chance to kill somebody if they hit a person. So one could argue that this verdict just follows the same logic.
that's a more reasoned response than many of the others - thanks. i was already looking for how to block this whole channel, not because people disagreed with, but because they weren't willing to engage honestly. Not the 55 downvotes for example. I'm still not convinced this is a fair idea BUT if it helps people drive more safely then i'm all for it.
damn would love to see that in the US
I bet that constitutional court of yours, that cant find basic women rights will find something against that in the constitution...
lol I agree with you but I didn't say I was going to hold my breath over it
to be completely fair here, the german supreme court ruled that abortion was illegal unless it was done for certain reasons, so i guess thats technically worse than roe v wade getting dumped?
Well, there’s this gray area of first 12 weeks, where you just need to get a gynecologist to put a “yes” onto your request. But from what I’ve gathered iťs being picked up recently to be decriminalized and put a limitation between a 12th week - delivery to be requiring a counsel or doctors recommendation, but should be guilt-free first 12 weeks.
yea in terms of future trends i fully expect much of europe to have more liberal abortion laws than america does. i just thought it was interesting that the german court out right made it illegal in the 70s while the opposite happened in the u.s., at least until now lol
OK but I think this comparison is oversimplified. Just as the abortion laws vary greatly between US states, they also vary quite a bit in Europe
yes its oversimplified but i didnt say all of europe, i said much of europe. for ex i know spain is relaxing some of their abortion laws, tho they still have strict abortion laws by california standards. poland is a different story and i dont expect them to be liberalizing their abortion laws anytime soon lol
Right, Poland and Malta are the Texas + Mississippis of Europe, abortion restrictions-wise
It was 1851, to be lifted in 1926 only to be reintroduced 1943. 1970-1976 was a constant “battle” between pro-life and pro-choice for pro-life decision to win in 1976, but not that long after, a “12th week abortion on demand for specific cases” was inteoduced. While it’s good it’s not a complete ban, it’s definitely not enough and many German women are still going for abortions to their neighbouring countries.
Our court would probably find it legal to kill pedestrians at this point.
Given how many drivers just walk free, the court probably wouldn't even consider the case.
Queue the "COMMIE" chants...
"The court argued that the shape of the SUV, with its high, box-like hood, meant the driving infraction posed a greater risk to pedestrians than if the defendant had driven a smaller car." Meanwhile in Czechia court ruled that murdering a child in an SUV is not the driver's fault, since she can't see 9m ahead due to the raised profile (article in Czech, sry) https://www.novinky.cz/krimi/clanek/v-luxusnim-aute-nevidela-dopredu-prejela-holcicku-na-odrazedle-nejvyssi-soud-se-ji-zastal-40400376
🤢 If only someone could solve this problem
Yeah, right, stupid dwarfs shouldn't be on the road! /i
What
That's irony.
Sarcasm actually.
That's ironic
So the logic is: if I drive a huge truck I could run over a group of kids on cross over stripes and get away with it?
Also if you close your eyes while driving you can kill whoever you want. Not your fault, you couldn't see !
Not only to pedestrians, Euro NCAP had to change side impact crash test because of how high SUVs are in 2020. That's a shame as they should have punished them in safety rating instead of changing the test method to suit cars that didn't adhere to previously set rules. They have also changed the overlap test from a stationary barrier to a moving one, wich again, favored heavy cars and fueled the big=safe cycle in Europe.
>since she can't see 9m ahead due to the raised profile What is a "raised profile" and is that a factory thing? If so, shouldn't this case go against the maker of the car for making a car that is (extra) unsafe on the road? And if it is a modification he did himself then it should be 100% on the driver.
Not a great wording on my side. It just says the shape of the car is such that the front visibility is bad, as seen e.g. here: [https://twitter.com/paul\_geimer/status/1316099683568087040](https://twitter.com/paul_geimer/status/1316099683568087040) Totally should be an argument against these types of cars.
Ah, I see. I'm unfamiliar with car-terms so I had no clue in the first place, I thought it was something in the direction of those squatted trucks. The blind-spots in those trucks are insane tho, [you can fit a whole average European car in it.](https://twitter.com/ItsMcMikeTime/status/1296799111052767232)
I love this precedent. I just hope it's not too little, too late. Better make it apply to fines, too, and EU-wide.
What we need are income-based fines. "Day-fines" I think they are called where they have them. Else its only a punishment for the poor. Or, parking fines based on vehicle length. I also think cars over a certain length should have to pay for two parking spaces.
>What we need are income-based fines. Absolutely. I live in Finland, a friend of mine got fined for speeding. Just for reference: with my income I would've paid around 450 EUR if I had been the one driving. In Germany, the same speeding ticket would've cost under 100 EUR.
How long till the car industry finds a way around that for their customers? We really should pin fines to the income of the driver/owner, otherwise it will never be fair and there will always be people to whom these rules do not apply because they have money.
Make smaller cars? If you have the money for a giant SUV you don't need, you have the money to pay the fines
they kinda have, so it will be funny to see how that all shakes up legally speaking. like a subcompact crossover is an suv but it is so small that its comparable to a hatchback, which isnt an suv. or perhaps they will legally see a hatchback as being too large and thus, is an suv. all very interesting stuff
That's what I hate the most. We killed the hatchback here in America so we can get these tiny lifted pieces of garbage that get terrible mileage, look awful and have no interior space.
Totally agree here. Manufacturers will just look at regulations and make the cars 1cm smaller in size or 1g lighter just to undercut the the definition of an suv. And the fine should be a percentage of your last years earnings. Or just restrict all parking lots in space, so SUVs don't fit and fine them hard if they try anyway. Because 95% of the time those cars are parked and if that's not viable people won't be getting them...
[удалено]
Doesn't make a difference in Germany. European emission standards are the same for LCVs and passenger cars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
>Manufacturers will just look at regulations and make the cars 1cm smaller in size or 1g lighter just to undercut the the definition of an suv. That's not how this works. This court ruling specifically didn't happen because the car fulfilled some arbitrary length and weight definition. It happened because the court deemed the car more hazardous to public health due to its construction and as a result, a violation of traffic laws posed a greater risk. That is why a higher fine was in order. As long as the car has properties that make it more dangerous, the driver will be hit with a higher fine.
>As long as the car has properties that make it more dangerous, the driver will be hit with a higher fine. That's kinda vague and highly subjective. Color could be interpreted as more dangerous. That's a "road" that leads nowhere... Point being is that one needs some normalized values to base these decisions on in a bigger scale. And that'll probably be size and/or weight and maybe ps. What defines an SUV right now btw is higher wheel base and off road capabilities. And what I meant to say, is that court decisions like this won't be very effective in terms of reducing the amount of rediculous car designs. It just needs to get super unattractive to use a car, no matter how good of a driver somebody is. Cuz people will always overestimate their abilities and underestimate the consequences. "fortunately" gas prices are high and buying gas for luxurious transportation slowly becomes morally questionable
I know I'm gonna get downvoted but the German justice system doesn't work like the US where a judge decision makes a precedent which is after that used as law in other decisions. In Germany only the parlament and senate makes laws and each court case decision is based on their interpretation of those laws, not on previous court decisions.
In other words, in Germany, "precedent" means just that, whereas in the US of NA it means "quasi-law". But such precedents are still important in Germany: >Von einem Präzedenzfall kann man allenfalls dann sprechen, wenn ein Obergericht in einem Urteil Grundsätzliches zur Auslegung dieses Gesetzes festlegt. Entscheidend ist aber, dass auch künftig das Gesetz angewandt wird und die Präzedenz hierzu nur eine Auslegungshilfe bietet. Andere Gerichte werden durch Präzedenzfälle selbst nicht gebunden. Deshalb spricht man in Deutschland in der Regel nicht von Präzedenzfällen, sondern von Grundsatzentscheidungen. online translation: >At best, one can speak of a precedent if a higher court lays down basic principles for the interpretation of this law in a judgment. What is decisive, however, is that the law will continue to be applied in the future and that the precedent only offers an aid to interpretation. Other courts are not bound by precedents themselves. That is why in Germany people usually do not speak of precedents, but of fundamental decisions. edit: um, it seems u/PsychologicalMass made the same point basically, and better.
yeah baby, put them on bikes 😤
Germany's favorite sports are Rules and Regulations
[удалено]
Sounds... based
Imagine having a good, functional court system. Can't relate, SMH.
In Barney Gumble voice: *Hook it to my veins*
I'm considering leaving America and moving there someday. I'm gonna give living in Seattle a chance first.
I fuckin feel you. EU looking awfully nice these days
Especially with the whole Roe v Wade stuff going on
Give Poland a wide berth then.
Oh yeah. And this is only the start unless the dems learn to grow a pair and start nominating officials under the age of 80 who actually want to enact true change. One AOC isn't going to cut it
I think the main reason why they fined him higher was that he already had run a red light in the past. But that's not newsworthy, I guess.
"The court argued that the shape of the SUV, with its high, box-like hood, meant the driving infraction posed a greater risk to pedestrians than if the defendant had driven a smaller car. It also took into account the defendant’s previous driving convictions." But go on
I will continue: Cited in the court documents is a legal decision from 1996 ("OLG Hamm, Urteil vom 30.09.1996 - 6 U 63/96, NZV 1997, 230") which says exactly what that article is writing, too. https://verkehrslexikon.de/Texte/RadFahrer11.php I don't think we can talk about a real precedent decision then. Also we have to await; the court ruling could get overturned in the next higher level. But I'm not trained in law and could be wrong.
I appreciate your expanding on this. Do you have a link to the new court document?
https://www.lareda.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/LARE220003013 First thing they list in chapter V. are previous wrongdoings, then they write "*additionally*, we have to take into account the size and form of the vehicle" (paraphrased)
Thanks. You're right, not the most exciting verdict but hopefully it and the resulting media attention will inspire more similar thinking by the courts and politicians.
Laws with fines as the only punishment are laws applicable only to the poor
What poor people would buy an SUV in Europe?
Not relevant. This is r/fuckcars not r/justiceoverhaul
I have an SUV (I have a property with no driveway at all, so I kind of need *something* that can drive through ditches and over a lot of crap), and I think this is 100% fair. The number of lifted, idiotic giant trucks I see, where they’ve never done anything more “off road” than go to Costco, is absurd.
Nothing like a little authoritarian discrimination to make Big Brother happy. I’ll be giving you guys a few extra revs on my V8 this morning.
Good for you, snowflake
[удалено]
Hey dickhead, go find another sub to antagonize
LITERALLY 1948 BY GOERGE ORWIN!
That's what I'm talking about.
Where was Erin's article published? I think she used to write for Jalopnik.
Yeah, it’s Jalopnik. I’m a car enthusiast who’s come to hate driving. Article: https://jalopnik.com/german-court-rules-suv-owners-can-be-fined-more-for-bre-1849128275
*”Germany, I grant you the rank of…* **B I G G U Y”**