Parking Garages in New York are Refusing to Park Tesla Cybertrucks, They Say, “Insurance Companies Have Asked Them Not to”

Work for Torque News, follow on Twitter, Youtube and Facebook.

A Cybertruck owner who took his truck to Manhattan says several parking garages refused to let him park his vehicle in their facilities. The owner adds that liability insurance providers covering the parking garages are behind the silent boycott.

Atul Sharma is a Cybertruck owner from New York, and he says there is a concerted Cybertruck ban across several parking garages in the city.

We just published an update to this story, discussing a possible weighty argument of why some New York parking garage owners allegedly may not allow Tesla Cybertrucks apparently on insurance orders.

Atul first noticed this phenomenon when he drove his Cybertruck to Manhattan for work. However, he was surprised to learn that none of the parking garages he tried were willing to let him park his Cybertruck on their property.

Atul shared his experience on the Cybertruck Owners Only group on Facebook. Here is what he wrote…

“I live in New York, and today, I decided to drive my Cybertruck to work in Manhattan. I was shocked to find out that none of the parking garages accept Cybertrucks.”

This is certainly a surprising development, and fortunately for those of us wondering what is going on, Atul did not simply accept their ban but chose to inquire why they were refusing to let him park his Cybertruck.

In this video, we discuss the possible reasons for a Cybertruck ban, including a possible political motivation, which you can watch at the Torque News Youtube Channel.

 

According to the Cybertruck owner, the parking garage ban for the Cybertruck has come about under the direct recommendation of insurance companies that provide liability coverage for the parking facilities.

Continuing his post, Atul writes…

“According to the parking garage operators, their insurance companies have asked them not to accept any Cybertrucks.”

Finally, Atul says the insurance companies passed the directive not to accept Cybertrucks “because Cybertrucks are very expensive and are not covered by the insurance policy.”

Atul was unhappy that he was singled out for driving a Cybertruck; however, in the comments, other Cybertruck owners shared their personal experiences of being denied various services for driving the vehicle.

Sam Cohen writes…

“I got the same exact comment from a couple of car washes in New Jersey. I’m like, that’s a way more expensive Mercedes S 550 in front of me…”

Another Cybertruck owner, Jayme DiSaverio, adds, “We were also turned away by several car washes in New Jersey—we were told the truck was too big and would damage the equipment—my husband was so annoyed.”

Returning to Atul’s case, it’s important to discuss why the parking garages refused to let him park his Cybertruck.

The immediate reason he received was that the Cybertruck was too expensive for liability purposes. However, this argument doesn’t hold water. Given how expensive vehicles have gotten recently, a $100,000 vehicle is nowhere in the exotic car category.

This argument is especially hard to believe in Manhattan. Jeev Yatigammana writes, “Aren’t all those Range Rovers, Lambo’s, Ferraris, Porsches, and S Classes and so on way more expensive than the Cybertruck? What gives with these places? Jeez.”

Tanya Hynd adds, “That's nonsense! There are a lot of cars in Manhattan that cost more than the Cybertruck, and they let them in! Like I said - it's nonsense!”

In the comments, people seem to think a better explanation is that the Cybertruck ban is politically motivated.

Glenn Crabtree writes, “Could it be a silent boycott due to Elon Musk's backing of our President-elect?”

Other theories include the Cybertruck ban being due to fears about EV fires or maybe the fact that the Cybertruck is a new vehicle.

Overall, it’s surprising to see more and more businesses denying Cybertruck owners services. Please let me know what you think about this phenomenon in the comments. Share your ideas by clicking the red “Add new comment” button below. Also, visit our site, torquenews.com/Tesla, regularly for the latest updates.

Image: Screenshot from Joe Tegtmeyer's YouTube channel

For more information, check out: Tesla Cybertruck Owners With a Vinyl Wrap Are Finding the Stainless Steel Becomes Permanently Blemished After Removing the Wrap

Tinsae Aregay has been following Tesla and the evolution of the EV space daily for several years. He covers everything about Tesla, from the cars to Elon Musk, the energy business, and autonomy. Follow Tinsae on Twitter at @TinsaeAregay for daily Tesla news.

Exactly, including the #1 selling electric vehicles which are the normal Tesla models which are also Musk vehicles. Stop trying to make this a political statement and understand that Cybertruck owners overpaid for an ugly piece of junk. Everyone complains about inflation, yet lay out $100K for this joke of a vehicle that was supposed to retail for $60K.

Submitted by Derek Washington (not verified) on November 14, 2024 - 7:35PM

Permalink

Cmon not everything is anti maga. What a bunch of cry baby snowflakes. Unlike normal cars the cucktruck is abnormally expensive to repair and why would any business take that chance?

There have been several recent incidents with cybertrucks catching on fire for seemingly little reason, and burning batteries are exceedingly difficult and dangerous to extinguish. It's definitely not a mystery.

Submitted by James Moran (not verified) on November 14, 2024 - 7:47PM

Permalink

I would think the ban would have more to do with the physical size of the beast. Making maneuvering through tight spaces difficult at best.

Exactly!! I can’t believe everyone in the article including the author seem to be scratching their heads about this when it’s just so much bigger than most other vehicles. I also would ban it along with those ridiculous huge lifted pick ups.
Manhattan, especially, is the last place a Cybertruck is practical. Perhaps the driver just wanted to floss, but silly choice to drive that beast to Manhattan.

Submitted by Alex (not verified) on November 14, 2024 - 7:50PM

Permalink

Perhaps because its such a clunky heavy piece they dont want ppl whacking other vehicles with it. Id be fine with it just being a boycott on our nee president elon musk. Money can even buy yourself a spot in the white house.

The car wash thing makes total sense... The manual has a pretty expansive list of do not do items in the car wash category, including hot water, and detergent. Anecdotal evidence suggests using a car wash can cause a variety of problems, up to bricking the vehicle. Even if some of the causality of these problems may or may not be actually caused the car wash, proving it wasn't the car washes fault in court would cost a lot of money for a small business owner.

Submitted by Will (not verified) on November 16, 2024 - 6:23AM

Permalink

It's more likely that they're a fire risk. A few have burst into flames after impacting objects like fire hydrants. You don't want a fire in a parking garage full of gas-powered vehicles.

Submitted by Ju Do (not verified) on November 16, 2024 - 7:44AM

Permalink

Who on earth would want to be near something that might catch on fire? Would the junk truck insurance cover any damage to the parking lots or leave them high and dry?

Submitted by Michele (not verified) on November 16, 2024 - 8:12AM

Permalink

I think "Muskmobiles" present a huge fire risk, are over-sized and likely difficult to park, are hideous to look at, and are likely driven by self-entitled/centered people. I get irritated every time I see one. Insurance companies may be onto something - I understand the paint on Muskmobiles is very sensitive.

Submitted by Duff (not verified) on November 16, 2024 - 8:30AM

Permalink

It's not the cost of the vehicle, but the cost of repairing it. Often minor damage to a cyber truck results in the vehicle being totaled. More expensive non-teala cars are cheaper and faster to repair.

Submitted by John Santiago (not verified) on November 16, 2024 - 8:34AM

Permalink

Given the alarming rate of fires associated with tesla vehicles I'm not surprised. Why put your business and customers at risk?

Submitted by aj485 (not verified) on November 16, 2024 - 8:57AM

Permalink

Maybe it has to do with the recent recall for the delayed images presented by the back up camera, especially since there's only a slit window in the back and no rear view mirror. Not being able to see what you may run into when backing up in a parking garage does seem like a liability issue.

Submitted by S. Q. Dando (not verified) on November 16, 2024 - 10:14AM

Permalink

It has more to do with the attitude of the New York peoples. A Tesla product sitting out is an easy target for vandals who might not like Elmo or his bizarre behavior. Garages dinnae wannabe liable for the damages.