The French capital's mayor hailed a 'clear choice of Parisians' in favor of a measure that is 'good for our health and good for the planet.'

The measure to make vehicles weighing 1.6 tons and over pay 3x the parking rates for the first two hours has passed in Paris.

Now, let’s get that in place for London and many other other places to help slow, and even reverse, this trend towards massive personal vehicles.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
    12·
    10 months ago

    No, I’m arguing the exact opposite. I’m saying that when there’s adequate public transit then cars shouldn’t be necessary to begin with. Certainly not SUVs. What I’m arguing against is making SUVs an acceptable privilege for rich people. I’m honestly shocked that people on the Fuck Cars community are having trouble understanding this point. It’s not complicated.

    • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      2·
      10 months ago

      The problem with your point is your reinventing the homo oeconomicus except for transportation. The underlying assumption is that if only the public transit (walkability, bikeability, what-have-you-ability) is good enough, people would not drive their cars.

      And there’s truth to it insofar as you take something like Phoenix, AZ or something and just make cars more expensive it ain’t gonna do shit except fleece people. But Paris isn’t that, at some point you have to grapple with the fact that you also have to actively get people out of cars via incentives to do so because there’s a sizeable amount of people who are terribly, terribly car brained and will not change, because they’re not being rational about it.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
        22·
        10 months ago

        I’m not reinventing homo economicus here. I’m saying that if sufficient infrastructure exists then it’s fine to just ban SUVs entirely because they’re not necessary. What I’m arguing against is creating a two tiered system where rich can flaunt the rules that apply to everyone else. I honestly don’t understand why this is so hard a concept for people to get.

        • Hexagons [e/em/eir]@hexbear.netEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          I’m saying that if sufficient infrastructure exists then it’s fine to just ban SUVs entirely because they’re not necessary.

          I think I’m a big dumdum because I didn’t realize until literally this comment that this is the other, better, non-carbrained solution. I was over here like “so what, you just want people with SUV’s to decide of their own accord not to drive them into downtown because suddenly they realize they’re bad people for doing so? Never gonna happen.”

          But now that I see your much better idea, simply ban all SUVs from Paris, I’m entirely on board! I do think that’s going to be a harder law to pass than hiking parking fees, but it would definitely be a much better one!

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
            22·
            10 months ago

            Right, it’s more work to ban SUVs entirely, but it’s definitely a better goal overall. I fundamentally dislike the idea of creating rules that only apply to the poors while the rich are at best mildly inconvenienced. We need to strive to build a fair society where laws apply to everyone equally.

            There’s a great quote from Anatole France that sums this up:

            In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

    • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      What I’m arguing against is making SUVs an acceptable privilege for rich people.

      The proposal doesn’t do anything akin to “making SUVs an acceptable privilege for rich people”, it applies a triple sin tax on SUVs. This is better than if there were no sin tax at all.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
        23·
        10 months ago

        It’s incredible that you can’t wrap your head around the fact that creating a tax that only rich people can afford makes SUVs a privilege for the rich. It’s doubly funny that you yourself already admitted that it’s only rich people who own SUVs anyways meaning that there’s likely to be little tangible effect from this.

        • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          It’s incredible that you can’t wrap your head around the fact that creating a tax that only rich people can afford makes SUVs a privilege for the rich.

          SUVs for Poor People 2024 - Why should only rich people drive SUVs?

          No one should drive SUVs. Making SUVs something only rich people can afford reduces the total amount of SUVs on the road. I’m sure that you would prefer Singapore over Dallas, right?

          It’s doubly funny that you yourself already admitted that it’s only rich people who own SUVs anyways meaning that there’s likely to be little tangible effect from this.

          You’d be surprised at the irrationality of rich people who spend big bucks on an expensive car but balk at tripled parking prices.

          Here’s an anecdote: I personally know a Lexus driver who refuses to drive downtown because the parking is too expensive.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
            23·
            10 months ago

            Again, my point is that laws should apply equally and not be based on whether somebody can afford to ignore them. Banning SUVs would be a good and fair measure, making it so that rich pricks can prance around in them is just rewarding privilege.

            • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              making it so that rich pricks can prance around in them is just rewarding privilege.

              Please show me some of the poor people who are driving around downtown Paris in SUVs (hint: there is no one)

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                13·
                10 months ago

                Please work on your reading comprehension and then reply to the point actually being made.