- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- climate@slrpnk.net
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.
[citation needed]
Sure, just like carbon tax.
I can be fucking serious, and if you genuinely think carbon taxes are accomplishing anything meaningful then what else is there to say to you.
Let’s cut to the chase: do you oppose congestion pricing?
Do you oppose congestion pricing because it “hurts the working poor” and that it’s just a “performative gesture”?
I don’t think it’s the right approach for meaningfully addressing the problem. The real solution is to invest in building public transit infrastructure, to design cities to be walkable. Congestion pricing simply creates a penalty for people without providing them with alternative. Should be pretty easy to understand why this is not a real solution.
We are talking about Paris here. Paris has the best public transit infrastructure in the world. Paris is highly walkable.
People who drive downtown have no excuse for their actions and must be penalized accordingly.
When London implemented congestion pricing, it significantly improved traffic and encouraged people to take transit. You are completely ignoring reality if you oppose congestion pricing on the basis of it being ineffective.
When there is adequate infrastructure then there should just be a ban period. What these policies achieve is to provide the rich with privileges that regular people can’t enjoy. If you don’t see why pay to play schemes are bad then there’s no point continuing this discussion. I’m not ignoring anything, I just disagree with this approach on moral basis.
You are deeply unserious if your proposal is just “ban all cars lulz”.
Congestion pricing and paid parking have objectively reduced traffic in downtowns across the world, and you are deeply unserious if you want to achieve a goal but refuse to do anything to work towards that goal.
You are seriously advocating for the massive subsidization of drivers here. I do not weep for the ability of the common man to impose massive externalities on their fellow men and have their behavior be subsidized.
Cars are a luxury good that most people simply cannot afford without massive subsidies. Consider how in Hong Kong and Singapore, where cars aren’t subsidized, only the rich can afford to drive. Do you think that this is wrong? Should Hong Kong and Singapore bulldoze their cities and pave over paradise so that poor people can drive too?
You are acting as if driving cars is a God-given right that poor people are being denied. There is no such right to drive a car. The private automobile is a luxury good that would have never spread to the masses if not for massive government subsidies. Driving is not a civil right.
Sorry, what’s unserious about a car ban in places with adequate alternative infrastructure? Why can’t pedestrians who don’t want to be honked and nearly (if lucky) run over be able to take refuge somewhere, even if it’s only one city per country, with drivers retaining control over literally everywhere else?
I am for a total car ban in city centers around the world. However, this is not a policy that activists today can seriously propose to a city council: consider that even in the ground zero of the Urbanist movement, Amsterdam, cars are still allowed in the city center.
Even though I would prefer a total car ban, I am not going to oppose intermediate steps like a triple tax on oversized vehicles, because I’m not going to let my dreams of a perfect city get in the way of improving society somewhat.
When you play Mario Kart, do you assiduously avoid overtaking the leader of the pack?
Now, now, let’s not try bring logic into this discussion.
Nice straw man buddy. What we’re actually talking about merits of making SUVs a privilege for the rich or banning them.
Perhaps, it’s silly to claim this is the only approach possible.
I’m not, but keep on straw manning there. Seems to be what you excel at.
Nope, but I’ve already realized that having a serious discussion with you isn’t possible. Bye.
SUVs have always been a privilege for the rich. This policy reduces the amount of people who can afford to drive SUVs downtown. It is a net good despite your aesthetic objections against it.
A world where everyone can afford to drive SUVs is not better than a world where only a few can afford to drive SUVs. The world where everyone can afford to drive SUVs is the American suburb, where car ownership is so heavily subsidized to the point that even poor people drive SUVs. Do you think this is better than Hong Kong or Singapore, where only rich people can afford to drive SUVs?
This is literally your position. Your logic is completely indistinguishable from that of pro-car concern trolling. There is an in-between world between Dallas and utopia. There needs to be an in-between step between car hell and bicycle utopia. Expensive parking is a needed step in the right direction. To refuse to take the first step out of car hell, however imperfect it might be, is to advocate for an indefinite wallowing in the pits of shit.
And you are simply a deeply unserious person who says they want something but in actuality are advocating for the exact opposite. Good riddance!
In your bizarro world, there are actually no in-between steps between carbon hell and green utopia. Until carbon dioxide is banned, people should just be allowed to emit CO2 for free.
I’m so sorry that you cannot comprehend a world that’s in-between “everyone drives SUVs” and “only a few drive SUVs” and understand why the latter world is better than the former world. When you advocate against policy that improves society somewhat on the basis that it doesn’t create utopia, you are advocating in favor of the status-quo.
No hard feelings.
Are you seriously arguing you can’t get around Paris without a car lol?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.