A city with less cars is a net positive for mobility impaired people.

It frees space for people (wider sidewalks...), reduce the risks of navigating the streets, and for the ones that have to use a car, there's less traffic and less people stealing dedicated parking spots.

Less cars also means less mobility impaired people. Cars create them through crashes and a lifetime of sedentariness.

Finally, it should be noted that most of the time when someone says "what about mobility impaired people?", when debating reallocating public space to people instead of cars, they are not mobility impaired themselves and don't actually care about them. They just try to guilt shame their opponents to win.

▲

delichon 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> they are not mobility impaired themselves and don't actually care about them.

That's a baseless and false slur. My first thought was that visiting Paris would be difficult because of all of the walking. I fall in the large gap between disabled and fit. On the one hand I would benefit from more walking, on the other I would not get much enjoyment out of a city that way, and would tend to drive far to services where I could park nearby.

	▲	wiether 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Maybe it's my European bias talking, but "visiting a city" with a car seems like the worst idea possible. Basically a city is either small enough to be crossed walking, or big enough to have public transportation. And after walking or cycling, public transportation is the best way to visit the city. In Paris, there's bus stops or metro (subway) stations everywhere. A bus or metro puts the passenger at a higher level than walkers/cyclists/car passengers and with huge windows, allowing to enjoy a unique view of the city. The view of the Eiffel Tower you get when crossing the Seine on the Bir-Hakeim bridge is an experience that can ONLY be enjoyed by riding the metro. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cqIJVzkLD4c
	▲	rsynnott 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think you’d have a fairly miserable time navigating any major European city _by car_, even before these policies. They’re largely not designed for it. For a start, where are you parking? It’s not like parking was particularly plentiful or conveniently located before this change. These sorts of reforms are generally aimed at discouraging people from commuting in by car. People who _regularly drive around central Paris_ (except for delivery drivers etc) would be a fairly small constituency.

▲

dmix 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> and for the ones that have to use a car, there's less traffic and less people stealing dedicated parking spots.

The article mentions there's now constant traffic jams for city buses in Paris. It seems best for people who can cycle, walk, or people who already live in the city and don't need to travel much.

▲

NoraCodes 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> constant traffic jams

Well, no, the article says that

> traffic jams in Paris have risen 4% [in 11 years]

	▲	orwin 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The occurrence increased, but weirdly, the length (in time spent, not kilometers) was reduced by around the same number. So you enter a bit more traffic jams, but they last a bit less.

▲

LaGrange 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's just a weird way of saying that the reforms didn't go far enough.

	▲	dmix 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Congestion pricing seems to be the simplest solution. Has nice clear incentives and less excessive top-down city planning.