this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
336 points (98.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9623 readers
466 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Hexagons@hexbear.net 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] wopazoo@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] wopazoo@hexbear.net 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] wopazoo@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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)

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Please work on your reading comprehension and then reply to the point actually being made.

[–] wopazoo@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Opposing the war on cars because you weep for the mythical working-poor Parisian SUV driver

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

not what I said, but it's pretty clear that's the straw man you want to argue against

[–] wopazoo@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] wopazoo@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago

maddened when someone improves society somewhat