The article is in Dutch, so I've put a (mostly) machine translation below.
Berlin car free? Plan for referendum leads to fierce resistance
The Berlin state elections are not until September, but already the German capital is full of campaign posters. The topic is perhaps the most radical traffic plan in the world: a virtually car-free Berlin. Activists want to force a referendum on this, right-wing parties are actively campaigning against.
It is a bill that a group of lawyers, traffic experts and green activists have worked on for years. The idea is to significantly restrict car traffic within the ring railway line, an area where about 30 percent of the nearly four million Berliners live. With no less than 88 square kilometers, the area is about the size of Eindhoven.
People would only be allowed to drive a car in this area twelve days a year. There will be exceptions for emergency services, taxis, people with disabilities, freight traffic and people with crucial occupations. The rest will have to go on public transport, by bike or on foot.
It would lead to fewer traffic accidents, nuisance and emissions. The space that is opened up can be used for cycle paths, greenery and seating. "Or playgrounds... or urban libraries," Marie Wagner, one of the initiators, daydreams. "And finally, kids can cycle safely to school."
Opponents point to higher traffic burden on surrounding neighborhoods and economic damage, as businesses would leave and shops would become less accessible. Wagner dismisses those claims. "Only 9 percent of shop revenue within the ring comes from people who travel by car," she says.
"Moreover, research has shown that more attractive streets lead to more consumption, because people stay there longer." Whoever has to and should be allowed to use the car, such as handymen, can move through the city more easily, is the idea.
Colleague Gerald Stefani insists the activists are not against the car itself. “We don’t want to abolish car use, we want to regulate it. Also, with twelve car days a year, much remains possible, such as large grocery trips and moving house." He is not worried about the implementation. "For each ride you could request a QR code online."
Resistance in car city
Berlin is a car city. In the growth period around 1900, the Gründerzeit, the distinctive Berlin rental blocks were set up wide along wide streets. The car was later easy to fit in. Destruction by World War II, the construction of the Berlin Wall and demolition drive of post-war city planners paved the way for wide motorways.
The initiative encounters fierce resistance from local politics. Right-wing parties like CDU, FDP and AfD have filled the city with posters with 'Autofrei? Nein!' (Car free? No!) and 'Car verbieten verboten' (Car ban forbidden). CDU Mayor Wegner speaks of a "well-intentioned dream of an urban idyll, but which will lead to a nightmare."
His party is at a loss in the upcoming state election and is being polled as equally large as the Greens and Die Linke, as well as the AfD. The image of "the left" who wants to take your car is a campaign gift. Therefore, the left parties are likely to keep their distance on this theme; they have not put up posters for the traffic referendum.
The anti-campaign is helpful, Stefani says. It raises awareness: "There are people who come to sign because of the CDU posters." According to Wagner, almost all parties want to reduce car use, but they do not dare to take big steps.
"The car is deep in the German psyche," Stefani says. "It has been so important for German economic development that changes on the area of cars automatically provoke resistance. We also see that with the discussion about a maximum speed."
The activists are in the final stage to force a referendum in September: the collection of 174,000 signatures. That was difficult in the winter months, but now there is a catch-up sprint. With one more day to go, it looks like a toss up whether they will make it, says Marie Wagner. "It's more exciting than a krimi."
At Alexanderplatz, the activists ask Berliners for their signature. One signs directly ("It's certainly not radical, the current pollution is radical!"), the other dismisses the proposal ("Fewer cars fine, but not mine").
A woman doubts. She lives inside the ring and has a car. "It's useful for groceries." Still, she finds the idea exciting. After some persuasion from the activists, she signs. "Maybe good, then I'll finally be forced to cycle."
In that case I must apologize. I misinterpreted what you meant with that erosion. I also shouldn't have written it as a quote as I initially did, since it was paraphrasing and not a direct quote. I didn't mean to misrepresent.
That still doesn't change the rest of my argument, however.
That's fair. We differ in opinion on that, and I can see where you are coming from.
My issue with that, however, is that we then end up in a situation again where this child needs to spend ten years in whatever pain and agony they might be going through, just because they legally cannot make the decision by themselves.
Preferably that should not be happening, and giving the parents the ability to decide on their behalf is in my view an acceptable compromise to prevent that suffering from happening. While it is a decision with a lot more weight, we already do give parents a lot of power to make decisions for their child in other situations, so it is not entirely without precedent.
I think this is a ridiculous take. The Netherlands cannot be held responsible for what it didn't do itself.