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.
I'm all for taxing the rich more, it's not ultimately my final goal but it's something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. 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?
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. 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.
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!
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.
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?
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'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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Please work on your reading comprehension and then reply to the point actually being made.
Opposing the war on cars because you weep for the mythical working-poor Parisian SUV driver
not what I said, but it's pretty clear that's the straw man you want to argue against
I'm going to name every single logical fallacy you've ever made, and it's going to be fucking over for you.
You've truly run out of points when all you can say is "hurr durr strawman strawman" huh?
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.
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.
Parisians: improves society somewhat
Wise man: this will not turn society into utopia, so I actually oppose this measure lol
If nothing else, its making the "Pro-Driving Big Things Just Because I Can" people mad and I'm all for it.
"Punishable by fine" is just another way of saying "it's legal if you can afford it."
Poor people aren't driving SUVs around downtown Paris in the first place. I do not weep for nonexistent people.
It's actually incredible that you have people on fuck cars that are AGAINST raising the prices of car parking. Anything that's done to make driving more expensive and less subsidized is anti-poor apparently. Literally indistinguishable from pro-car concern trolling.
Imperfect measures that improve society somewhat are actually fucking evil.
No one drives in Paris who's not already rich, the public transportation there is great
Should? Yes. Big doubt anything like this would happen in the current political landscape in France
The question was if heavier cars should pay more. Heavier cars are more expensive to buy, so this means that people who can afford a big car, will pay more. It's a sort of progressive taxation by proxy.
For context: don't forget that this isn't the US: not everyone drives an SUV/pick-uptruck. Here you can see the size of the most popular car in France, compared to a pick-up truck.
As it should. Be the heavier the car the more dangerous it is for pedestrians and the more destructive it is for infrastructure.
All this arguing over progressive fining versus just slashing the tyres of all parked SUVs you see.
tyre extinguishers are based as fuck and they have caused a nonzero amount of people to reconsider their purchase of an SUV or to not drive their SUV downtown
I had this idea of putting construction foam into the exhaust.
So any car over 3,200lbs. my subcompact Honda Fit weighs 2300lbs. The 2024 Honda Accord weighs 3200lbs. I know eu has many more subcompact options than the US, cuz every car available here is basically an increasingly egg shaped amalgam of station wagon SUVs that weigh 4k lbs.
I was wondering how they would define what an SUV would be. If they're using weight, won't they be charging a bunch of electric cars extra too?
One electric car is better than one gasoline car, because electric cars don't fart toxic gases into the air where everyone's trying to breathe.
I'd take 10 electric cars over 7 gasoline fart cans any day of the week.
But we're talking a very large city where the goal isn't to make driving a car more expensive "just because" its to reduce the number of cars in town.
One electric car is better than one gasoline car, because electric cars don't fart toxic gases into the air where everyone's trying to breathe.
Nah, the fart particles are still there though and those get worse with weight
the fart particles are still there though
As a person who rides bikes a lot, I strongly prefer sitting at a stoplight behind an electric vehicle over a gasoline vehicle. Tailpipe emissions matter a great deal even though EVs don't completely solve the problem of cars creating air pollution.
Of course, I still prefer no cars over electric cars.
I mean, much the same, but I'm kind of split whether they're meaningfully better. Unless it's smog smog I have some ways to avoid car exhaust, like not standing directly beside it, where I live even the law allows for that. I don't put down enough watts to transport myself to a stable orbit.
But, just to be clear, this is me arguing against all cars, not pro gasoline cars over electric cars
I'm just mad that my city built a new protected bike lane along a busy road, but the air smells so bad because of car exhaust lol
oh, quite understandable. I do appreciate EVs when I'M stuck behind one at a traffic light for not gassing me.
From the article, its mostly about weight with Electric Cars having a higher weight threshold than Non-Electric Cars.
Also from the article, its not a ban, its just higher parking prices. So if you've got the cash, you can drive an H3 into downtown Paris all you want.
Yup. EVs also run into the tonnage limit quickly too. A Tesla Model 3 single engine is 1.75 tons (no extra parking costs), but the dual motor is over 2 tons.
The US has way too many vehicles that should be about 20-30% smaller and lighter for basic city driving. Even the "small" vehicles aren't small anymore.
In other news: Peugeot and Renault announce 1.59 ton Urban Utility Vehicles.
The SUVs in Europe are also smaller on average than the behemoths on American roads. The largest ones you will come across in France will be BMW X5 sized. And while they are large, they are utterly dwarfed by SUVs like the Suburban, Sequoia and Escalade. An Escalade vs X5 comparison here.
Indeed! It's really hard to explain just how much smaller the traffic feels in European cities, even when there's lots of vehicles they're still less massive overall. I have taken video footage of traffic in a few different European cities just to show people how much smaller, quieter, and less dense rush hour traffic is. Even when comparing it to my US mid-sized city's traffic.
It's just nicer to be around roads with fewer and smaller cars.
For a second I thought it said "block" instead of "back", and I was disappointed. Nice to see they're trying to do something about the issue.
Just narrow the lanes and roads even futher so it makes SUV untenable
Do you think that would stop people who buy Escalades and Ford F250s? They already drive over the lines in my city because they're too wide. The vast majority of people who buy those kinds of vehicles are self-centered and selfish enough to not care if they're being dangerous in narrow lanes. They are already doing that.
Hell, I saw a person drive their Ford F650 to fucking Starbucks last week. It barely fit into the parking lot. Not a parking spot (it definitely didn't fit into that), but even just turning and maneuvering in the lot was nearly impossible. He likely burned a gallon of gas just jockying in and out of the lot.
.
when someone improves society somewhat
