- 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.
When giant SUVs are only accessible to the rich anyways, then the whole premise of tripling parking fees is meaningless to begin with. And yes, I’m against the idea of trying to solve the problem using a tax because it’s a performative measure that accomplishes nothing of real value while distracting from real solutions. I believe this accomplishes about as much as carbon taxes.
Driving your car seems free because you’ve already paid for it yesterday at the pump. Expensive parking puts a real, visible price on driving that you have to confront every single day.
The rich doesn’t solely consist of Jeff Bezos and co. Most people who drive luxury SUVs cannot afford tripled parking prices in the city every day. And even if they could, this forces them to reconsider their habits and maybe take the train next time.
This is not a performative measure, this is the real solution. Driving needs to become multiple times more expensive, and a tripled parking price is a good place to start. Drivers are heavily subsidized by society and this subsidy needs to end, and these taxes are the first step in that direction.
You can’t be fucking serious lol.
[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?
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.
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.
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.
The thing is, SUV prices depreciate, and people who would never be able to afford a new one can easily obtain them used. Gas prices are obviously not enough of a deterrent even to those living paycheck to paycheck. Some additional barriers to disincentivize the choice of driving the largest car they can afford is very welcome.
Again, my point is that this approach creates a two tiered system where people who can afford it get to flaunt the rules everybody else has to play by. An outright ban that applies to everyone equally is a much more fair measure.
@yogthos @BoxedFenders more likely they’re flouting the rules tbh
Please show me the mythical poor people who are driving around downtown Paris in their SUVs. Please, show me one! They don’t exist! Please stop pearl clutching over the plight of the mythical poor Parisian SUV driver!
And more straw manning. Props for working hard to twist what I say to fit the argument you want to argue against champ.
You have got to be American right? The right for one to drive their big-ass SUV downtown is not something the Parisian working-class is concerned about!
Working-class Parisians are not buying and driving big-ass SUVs downtown anyways! No poor people are being harmed by this!
I’m not an American, but it’s pretty funny how you now speak for the Parisian working class. And I’ve repeatedly explained to you in detail that my argument absolutely nothing to do with poor people being harmed by this. The fact that you keep framing it that way illustrates that you’re either a troll or have incredibly poor reading comprehension.
So what’s your argument then? You’re against a tax on people publicly flaunting their wealth, because it will… prevent poor people from flaunting their wealth? Lmao? Wealth that poor people don’t have?
I explained my argument repeatedly in this thread, if you still don’t get it then I clearly won’t be able to explain it to you. Either I have extremely poor communication skills or you understand what I’m saying perfectly well, and choose to ignore it and make transparent straw man to argue against. Either way, you can enjoy trolling somebody else. I’m done here.