7 ms·

> A city improved the air quality "Pure sadism!!!" Yeah I'm sure everyone is real miserable, which is why they just voted in a referendum for more car-free st

> A city improved the air quality "Pure sadism!!!" Yeah I'm sure everyone is real miserable, which is why they just voted in a referendum for more car-free streets. Amazing how out of touch with reality the car-dominance types are.

Saline9515 2y ago
You clearly have a non-existent knowledge of French political life. This referendum had a participation rate of 4%, and only 62% of the voters voted yes. So around 2% of the total voters. By the way, the French metro's air is highly polluted, due to tire degradation and brake dust, making it unfit for children or pregnant women. So yeah, it's manageable for young people. But when a baby arrives, it's hell. Same if you are old. Or disabled.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  French metro's air is highly polluted, due to tire degradation and brake dust, making it unfit for children or pregnant women These sound like...car problems.
  - Saline9515 2y ago
    True, but the metro space is closed, so pollution can attain a very high level there.
  - rangestransform 2y ago
    I can insulate myself from these problems in a car with a hepa air filter
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      Fuck them pedestrians, I guess.
- andrepd 2y ago
  Dutch people seem to do just fine with baby seats on their bikes, or bakfiets if you have lots of kids. Anecdotally, kids are also much happier when they can just bike to school/sports/activities with their friends instead of having their parents drive then everywhere on the back of the family SUV.
  - Saline9515 2y ago
    Dutch people using bikes for everything is a meme, they have as many cars per inhabitants as most of the developed nations. Anecdotically, they are a small, dense, flat country, with an oceanic weather. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territ...
    - sensanaty 2y ago
      We have cars here, but you're not dependent on them to get everywhere unless you live in the countryside (and even then, I knew plenty of kids who lived up in the North who biked 10+ km 1 way to school) or one of the super small cities where the sprinters are sparse. And isn't that the point most people make? It's not about complete eradication of cars, it's about having viable transport alternatives and the infrastructure to support those. It's just that we live in such a world where it's unthinkable to not have half our countries paved in asphalt to make sure cars can get places, so things like these always end up falling into a 2-sided extremist camp.
      - Saline9515 2y ago
        But...you still have cars fr when you need one. What many commenters argue here, and what the Paris administration is arguing is that you shouldn't own one.
        sensanaty 2y ago
        I mean if you live in a city like Paris, then yeah I'd say that's legitimate. I see nothing wrong with making such dense urban centers car-free other than what's necessary like deliveries or ambulances and such, but for the former these days you've got tiny electric trucks that even fit on bike paths without causing a ruckus, usually you'll see those grocery delivery services use them. Yes, people outside of urban cities like that (which, basically by definition means the majority of people in the country) still need cars to get around most likely, but at least we can ensure that inside the cities themselves, there are good alternatives for people to get around that benefits every single person who finds themselves in the city not inside a car, which will be the overwhelming majority of people. I live in Utrecht in the Netherlands, and the single best thing the gov't did a few years ago is rip out the highway that was in the city center and instead turned it back into a canal surrounded by parks [1]. Literally nobody who has ever been to Utrecht would argue we were better off with the highway. [1] https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2020/09/16/utrecht-corrects-a-historic-urban-design-mistake/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2020/09/16/utrecht-correc...
- garbawarb 2y ago
  So only 1.5% of Paris voted against this? It sounds like they're going by the will of the voters.
  - Saline9515 2y ago
    No, the vote was pure communication by the mayor, it didn't have a budget, nor a list of the streets, nor any details. Paris' administration is rife with corruption and mismanagement, so voters weren't very mobilized for another PR coup.
    - Agingcoder 2y ago
      Mismanagement is (very) well documented but corruption is a very serious accusation. Do you have examples ? ( that don’t go back to Jacques Chirac )
      - Saline9515 2y ago
        I would suggest to look into the various whimsical subsidies of the city hall, the very expensive procurement of useless products or the ruinous public housing policy, that all serve to help the friends of the mayor and the constellation of fake associations that support her. All has been also documented, and has been mentioned repeatedly by the press.
    - SettembreNero 2y ago
      Informative panels about the vote where pretty much everywhere around the city.
      - Saline9515 2y ago
        And yet they couldn't even name one street that would be turned into a pedestrian one! Or give a budget! World class management right here heh?
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  So the people who voted yes still outnumbered the people who voted no.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
The improvement in air quality is overwhelmingly a result of banning diesel cars. It is, of course, possible to ban diesel cars rather than all cars. The people who live in the city don't want cars because it's the people who can't afford to live in the city who need them to get there.
- masklinn 2y ago
  > it's the people who can't afford to live in the city who need them to get there. What are you talking about. Paris's public transport reaches out 60km away from the city, and that's not including mainline trains (including high speed). The people who can't afford to live in the city have taken public transport to get there for 50 years.
  - Saline9515 2y ago
    A lot of economic activity requires cars. Delivery, workers coming with equipment, waste management, and so on. Every construction worker in Paris will tell you that it's very difficult to work there, and that they have doubled their prices as a result.
    - const_cast 2y ago
      These people are HELPED by anti-car legislation because it clears the congestion for them to run their business. Most small, and large, businesses would happily pay a small fee if it means half the transportation time. And it does, because traffic isn’t linear. Just a few more cars can be the difference between coasting at 30 or not moving at all.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        If it's really only a difference of a few cars then there should be a dozen other ways to get a similar effect without enacting a regressive tax. Meanwhile doing it through financial deterrence requires that someone is actually deterred. And then is that going to be poor people and small businesses or rich people and major companies?

Saline9515 2y ago

You clearly have a non-existent knowledge of French political life. This referendum had a participation rate of 4%, and only 62% of the voters voted yes. So around 2% of the total voters. By the way, the French metro's air is highly polluted, due to tire degradation and brake dust, making it unfit for children or pregnant women. So yeah, it's manageable for young people. But when a baby arrives, it's hell. Same if you are old. Or disabled.

anigbrowl 2y ago
French metro's air is highly polluted, due to tire degradation and brake dust, making it unfit for children or pregnant women These sound like...car problems.
- Saline9515 2y ago
  True, but the metro space is closed, so pollution can attain a very high level there.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  I can insulate myself from these problems in a car with a hepa air filter
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    Fuck them pedestrians, I guess.
andrepd 2y ago
Dutch people seem to do just fine with baby seats on their bikes, or bakfiets if you have lots of kids. Anecdotally, kids are also much happier when they can just bike to school/sports/activities with their friends instead of having their parents drive then everywhere on the back of the family SUV.
- Saline9515 2y ago
  Dutch people using bikes for everything is a meme, they have as many cars per inhabitants as most of the developed nations. Anecdotically, they are a small, dense, flat country, with an oceanic weather. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territ...
  - sensanaty 2y ago
    We have cars here, but you're not dependent on them to get everywhere unless you live in the countryside (and even then, I knew plenty of kids who lived up in the North who biked 10+ km 1 way to school) or one of the super small cities where the sprinters are sparse. And isn't that the point most people make? It's not about complete eradication of cars, it's about having viable transport alternatives and the infrastructure to support those. It's just that we live in such a world where it's unthinkable to not have half our countries paved in asphalt to make sure cars can get places, so things like these always end up falling into a 2-sided extremist camp.
    - Saline9515 2y ago
      But...you still have cars fr when you need one. What many commenters argue here, and what the Paris administration is arguing is that you shouldn't own one.
      - sensanaty 2y ago
        I mean if you live in a city like Paris, then yeah I'd say that's legitimate. I see nothing wrong with making such dense urban centers car-free other than what's necessary like deliveries or ambulances and such, but for the former these days you've got tiny electric trucks that even fit on bike paths without causing a ruckus, usually you'll see those grocery delivery services use them. Yes, people outside of urban cities like that (which, basically by definition means the majority of people in the country) still need cars to get around most likely, but at least we can ensure that inside the cities themselves, there are good alternatives for people to get around that benefits every single person who finds themselves in the city not inside a car, which will be the overwhelming majority of people. I live in Utrecht in the Netherlands, and the single best thing the gov't did a few years ago is rip out the highway that was in the city center and instead turned it back into a canal surrounded by parks [1]. Literally nobody who has ever been to Utrecht would argue we were better off with the highway. [1] https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2020/09/16/utrecht-corrects-a-historic-urban-design-mistake/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2020/09/16/utrecht-correc...
garbawarb 2y ago
So only 1.5% of Paris voted against this? It sounds like they're going by the will of the voters.
- Saline9515 2y ago
  No, the vote was pure communication by the mayor, it didn't have a budget, nor a list of the streets, nor any details. Paris' administration is rife with corruption and mismanagement, so voters weren't very mobilized for another PR coup.
  - Agingcoder 2y ago
    Mismanagement is (very) well documented but corruption is a very serious accusation. Do you have examples ? ( that don’t go back to Jacques Chirac )
    - Saline9515 2y ago
      I would suggest to look into the various whimsical subsidies of the city hall, the very expensive procurement of useless products or the ruinous public housing policy, that all serve to help the friends of the mayor and the constellation of fake associations that support her. All has been also documented, and has been mentioned repeatedly by the press.
  - SettembreNero 2y ago
    Informative panels about the vote where pretty much everywhere around the city.
    - Saline9515 2y ago
      And yet they couldn't even name one street that would be turned into a pedestrian one! Or give a budget! World class management right here heh?
TulliusCicero 2y ago
So the people who voted yes still outnumbered the people who voted no.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

The improvement in air quality is overwhelmingly a result of banning diesel cars. It is, of course, possible to ban diesel cars rather than all cars. The people who live in the city don't want cars because it's the people who can't afford to live in the city who need them to get there.

masklinn 2y ago
> it's the people who can't afford to live in the city who need them to get there. What are you talking about. Paris's public transport reaches out 60km away from the city, and that's not including mainline trains (including high speed). The people who can't afford to live in the city have taken public transport to get there for 50 years.
- Saline9515 2y ago
  A lot of economic activity requires cars. Delivery, workers coming with equipment, waste management, and so on. Every construction worker in Paris will tell you that it's very difficult to work there, and that they have doubled their prices as a result.
  - const_cast 2y ago
    These people are HELPED by anti-car legislation because it clears the congestion for them to run their business. Most small, and large, businesses would happily pay a small fee if it means half the transportation time. And it does, because traffic isn’t linear. Just a few more cars can be the difference between coasting at 30 or not moving at all.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      If it's really only a difference of a few cars then there should be a dozen other ways to get a similar effect without enacting a regressive tax. Meanwhile doing it through financial deterrence requires that someone is actually deterred. And then is that going to be poor people and small businesses or rich people and major companies?