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.

    • D61 [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      14·
      10 months ago

      If nothing else, its making the “Pro-Driving Big Things Just Because I Can” people mad and I’m all for it.

    • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      151·
      10 months ago

      Are you against any sort of tax for oversized vehicles? Do you also believe that congestion pricing “hurts poor people”?

      Also, giant SUVs are only accessible to the rich anyways. No poor person is driving around an Audi Q8 or a Cadillac Escalade, they take the train.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        104·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          101·
          10 months ago

          When giant SUVs are only accessible to the rich anyways, then the whole premise of tripling parking fees is meaningless to begin with.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          I believe this accomplishes about as much as carbon taxes.

          You can’t be fucking serious lol.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            42·
            10 months ago

            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.

            [citation needed]

            This is not a performative measure, this is the real solution.

            Sure, just like carbon tax.

            You can’t be fucking serious lol.

            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.

            • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              51·
              10 months ago

              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”?

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                33·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  9·
                  10 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
                    43·
                    10 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.

                • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  51·
                  10 months ago

                  Congestion pricing simply creates a penalty for people without providing them with alternative.

                  Are you seriously arguing you can’t get around Paris without a car lol?

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                    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.

        • BoxedFenders [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            13·
            10 months ago

            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.

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

              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!

                • wopazoo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  21·
                  10 months ago

                  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!

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                    13·
                    10 months ago

                    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.