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.

  • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    0·
    9 months ago

    The real solution is to invest in building public transit infrastructure, to design cities to be walkable.

    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.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      01·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        0·
        9 months ago

        When there is adequate infrastructure then there should just be a ban period.

        You are deeply unserious if your proposal is just “ban all cars lulz”.

        What these policies achieve is to provide the rich with privileges that regular people can’t enjoy.

        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.

        • ped_xing [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          0·
          9 months ago

          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?

          • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            0·
            9 months ago

            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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          01·
          9 months ago

          You are deeply unserious if your proposal is just “ban all cars lulz”.

          Nice straw man buddy. What we’re actually talking about merits of making SUVs a privilege for the rich or banning them.

          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.

          Perhaps, it’s silly to claim this is the only approach possible.

          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.

          I’m not, but keep on straw manning there. Seems to be what you excel at.

          You are acting as if driving cars is a God-given right that poor people are being denied.

          Nope, but I’ve already realized that having a serious discussion with you isn’t possible. Bye.

          • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            0·
            9 months ago

            Nice straw man buddy. What we’re actually talking about merits of making SUVs a privilege for the rich or banning them.

            SUVs have always been a privilege for the rich. You are advocating for the democratization of SUVs, which I am against. What’s next? Single-family detached houses for everyone?

            Why are you even posting in fuck_cars? You are literally advocating for the American suburb: where everyone has the privileges of the rich: a detached house and two SUVs.

            I’m not, but keep on straw manning there. Seems to be what you excel at.

            This is literally your position. Your logic is completely indistinguishable from that of pro-car concern trolling.

            Nope, but I’ve already realized that having a serious discussion with you isn’t possible. Bye.

            And you are simply a deeply unserious person who says they want something but in actuality are advocating for the exact opposite. Good riddance!