Slashdot Mirror
Paris To Test Banning SUVs In the City
thecarchik writes "Paris may be the first city to experiment with such a policy. Next year, it will begin to test restrictions on vehicles that emit more than a certain amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometer — the measure of a car's contribution to greenhouse gases. An official within the Parisian mayor's office, Denis Baupin, identified older diesel-engined cars and sport-utility vehicles as specific targets of the emissions limit. Residents and travelers have responded by buying thousands of electric cars, including the low-speed fiberglass G-Wiz — despite major safety concerns with the vehicle."
IIRC, paris/france gets most of its energy from nuclear power. So limited upstream pollution.
Many cities in Italy ban general auto traffic in the core downtown, for example Firenze. They have camera, if you drive in downtown and don't have the proper permits, a VERY expensive ticket arrives in the mail.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
electric allows for energy source flexibility
with a gas fueled car, when the saudis decide you are paying $5/ gallon so they can send more money to islamic militant causes, you have no choice. with electric, you can get your electricity from coal plants belching acid rain and CO2, yes, but at least you are only funding mining barons in west virginia. but your electricity can also be from nuclear, or solar, or hydroelectric, or geothermal, or tidal, or wind... or whatever. the whole point being, you can still drive the same car, you have energy independence, as an individual, and as a society. you don't have to worry what gas prices will be in 2011 as demand rises and supplies get deeper and deeper. you don't have to worry about soccer moms in SUVs, when they fill their fuel tanks, funding al qaeda or hugo chavez or russian neoimperialism or.. shiver... canada (relax canucks, its just a dumb joke)
electric cars are just being smart and planning for the future. not that planning for the future is a concept many people are very familiar with. change makes people uncomfortable. well, brazil, and india and china are not shrinking economies, and the global economy is recovering. remember fuel prices before the economic collapse in 2008? if you don't you'll soon get a nasty reminder. buy an electric car now. you've been amply warned, don't be dumb
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
with a gas fueled car, when the saudis decide you are paying $5/ gallon so they can send more money to islamic militant causes, you have no choice.
If you're American, surely you mean 'when the Canadians decide you are paying $5/gallon so they can send more money to hockey teams and French speaking welfare cases'?
You do realise that America gets twice as much oil from Canada as from Saudi, right?
No, I guess not.
If you live in Paris, you don't *need* a car, not now, not *ever*.
The big issue is that Paris sits in a river basin. On days without enough wind, the smog just sits over the city. It's pretty gnarly. Moving the pollution anywhere else is a big win because it becomes less localized, and impacts less people.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Electric "plants" are more efficient at producing energy than the combustion engines that cars use. I don't think there is anything recent about that.
As a French man, reading the news every day, and living quite close to Paris, I've never heard about such a ban. neither have I heard about "thousands of electric vehicles" being suddenly bought by Paris' residents. Right now, French people are more interested in the end of the "prime à la casse", which is a financial bonus given for buying low emission vehicles, but we're talking gas powered cars, electric cars are nowhere to be seen on french roads and cities.
Paris planned innovation is a system of shared self-service cars (probably electric), which can be used for a few hours for a moderate cost, similar to what has existed for years for bicycles ('vélib', this has been a major success for Paris' mayor).
The author notes he is also the G-Wiz riders club something or other.
I remember the Reva's having a very interesting crash test video and of course the G-Wiz shares the same fate.
However, TopGear managed to get a slightly more humorous review of the G-Wiz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtGp8Sha_mA
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Really, show me ONE SUV that actually uses its space for the work commute. Oh okay, so you found one in ALL of France, big whoop. But I think that Americans just can't grasp the problem. Europe is SMALLER en the cities are just not designed with big cars in mind. For that matter most Europeans just don't get the American road system. The two areas work at a totally different scale. For instance, my own commute takes about 45 minutes... by bicycle, car OR train. Really. The travel time is NOT in the distance but in the waiting. The car gets stuck in all kinds of traffic jams, the train suffers delays on one of the most crowded rail networks in the world and of course you got to get to and from the train station by a bus service that doesn't connect and the bicycle... actually that one is pretty good a very straight line with just one big pothole with no lights around it.
And SUV's are not just another car. Forget for a moment the type of driver inside of them who tend to be major assholes, two SUV's passing each other in a narrow street, and old european cities are nothing but narrow streets, and the cars typically slow down to pass each other. They take just that bit more space say a meter in a bumper to bumper traffic jams. 4 SUV's and you could have fitted a whole extra car in the extra space taken by a SUV. Parking is the same. The drivers feel safer so take more risks, not only does this make the risk similar again but the death toll on pedestrians and cyclist increases thanks to the SUV driver.
London had the congestion charging and despite that fact that it was universally hated (or so the popular press tell us) it worked. The difference is staggering. But it wasn't popular. ANY law will have opponents. If you try to find a way to get anything done that won't upset anyone, you will never get anything done and THAT will REALLY upset people.
You just want an excuse, because ONE SUV was once found to actually have a full load for a work commute, ALL SUV's should be allowed to drive with one person in congested city centers totally unfit for such large cars. NIMBY must be your middle name.
Oh and a congestion tax would also hit low pollution vehicles. So if I drive a small electric car filled with passengers I get to pay the same as a SUV with just the driver. SMART!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Sneak peak:
The top five sources of US crude oil imports for September were Canada (1,936 thousand barrels per day), Nigeria (1,107 thousand barrels per day), Mexico (1,098 thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1,082 thousand barrels per day), and Venezuela (919 thousand barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (422 thousand barrels per day), Angola (404 thousand barrels per day), Algeria (366 thousand barrels per day), Colombia (308 thousand barrels per day), and Russia (236 thousand barrels per day).
September 2010 Import Highlights: Released November 29, 2010
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Are we reading the same article summary? The threshold is based on emissions, not a particular body style, e.g. "is thing X an SUV or not." The conundrums you posed are moot.
Your shift key doesn't fund terrorists. It's OK to use it.
The vast majority of CO2 emissions from cars come from driving them, not manufacturing them.
See for instance page 4 of this report:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
You do realise that America gets twice as much oil from Canada as from Saudi, right?
Since oil is pretty much fungible, it really doesn't matter where "we" get it from, we still are contributing to the world-wide demand for oil which keeps the money flowing to the middle-east. In other words, if the US didn't get oil from Canada, current direct buyers of Saudi oil would be able to buy from Canada instead.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That can be considered as case for banning SUVs, right?
If not for the SUV, the other car occupants would not have died, maybe.
From Popular Mechanics magazine, January 1905, p. 119:
Many of the mail wagons in Paris are now electric-propelled vehicles, weighing 4,200 pounds, and carry a load of 1,100 pounds of mail. Storage batteries weighing 1,320 pounds furnish current sufficient to last for a 37-mile trip. The Motor Age says the new wagons carry twice as much mail as the former horse-drawn vehicles and travel much faster.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
75% is enough to justify the use of the word 'most'. Dude, you really need to get your facts straight.
The project is not targeted at SUV, they want to rate each car and ban everything above a level, which they have not decided yet. The test project is not going to start before mid-2012, and they would use traffic cameras.
And no, there isn't any rush for electric car yet here, there are some Toyota Pryus Hybrids, mainly cabs, nothing much.
sources : leparisien.fr, AFP
You are missing something.
G-Wiz officially is not a car - it is a quadricycle. There is a number of local manufacturers besides G-wiz and at least one of them electric IIRC. Offficially, quadricycle is limited to 40mph, is under some weight limit (different for electric and petrol), etc. It also does not have to pass most of EU car safety tests.
There is a reason why France is the only country in Europe where the so called quadricicles still sell and which continues writing them into the EU rulebook. It is called Paris (not that other french major cities are much better) traffic. You are not accelerating to Jeremy Clarkson (or 70-es Alain Delon film) speeds any time soon. Similarly, if you are hit you are not spilling out anything on the road anytime soon (especially if you got one of the french ones that actually pass car safety tests) because you are most likely to be hit at sub-10mph speeds.
So besides everything else this is also a subsidy to local manufacturers as most people will not go for G-wiz but for one of the local ones.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Regular commute outside the main train/bus routes?? Have you *ever* been to Paris? :P You'd be hard pressed to find a route not covered by metro or RER, not to mention buses..
That is some people's view. I don't agree.
People should be able to choose the vehicle they want to keep their family safe.
While it is unavoidable that the larger, more powerful SUVs will be too expensive for some people, what I condemn is any move by the _state_ to price people out of the SUV market based on relatively trivial matters such as CO2 emissions.
Rich people will still be able to buy, tax and insure their SUVs, while poorer people will be more likely to be limited to smaller, weaker cars that will come off worse in a crash.
Then I want to be able to put a turret with a couple of machine guns, connected to a sensor that detects when a SUV approachs with its owner more concerned about cellphone/makeup/kids/whatever that about traffic (because if he gets in a crash, I will get the worse part of it).
After all, I should be able to chose the vehicle I want to keep my family (and myself, don't forget about myself) safe.
Why can't
According to Wikipedia, the CR-V uses about 11 L/100 km. How is that better than most cars? I'm not sure I want to what kind of monster you're driving around in if you consider that good...
I've sussed it. That chart lists the OPEC countries separately to make them look smaller. If you add up the OPEC countries it comes to way more than Canada and Mexico combined (about 33% more).
No sig today...
People should be able to choose the vehicle they want to keep their family safe.
Yep the result of which is why I hate some Americans. The idea of I will buy the biggest bloody tank I can find and fuck anything on the road that gets in my way is disgusting. Here's a neat idea, if everyone has the fear of death behind the wheel maybe there would be less drunk drivers doing 100 in a 50 zone while talking on the mobile phone. Have you ever seen a bicycle enthusiast in a car pass a cyclist without leaving 1m gap? Or a recent example of mine, when it's pissing down so much that you can't see 10m ahead of you and half the traffic is driving with it's hazards on some impatient dick with a SUV and the worlds biggest bullbar on the front decides to overtake without having a lane to do so. I've seen that and I would have been pissed if I was the first firstaider on the scene in that weather. I would have probably just got out and punched the SUV driver.
If you take away people's safety blanket they may actually put a bit of thought into their fucking driving.
Parent is right. No one is forcing you to buy the G-Whiz, they are saying that the new rules will ban a lot of SUVs in the city, a very good thing for pedestrians and other motorists. Small also doesn't mean unsafe. I've seen an A class merc get hit by an SUV and roll. The driver got out on foot after the car came to a halt with all limbs intact, slightly shaken.
You may sense the attitude here. Well as someone who was hit by a reversing SUV because soccer mommy bought a car that she couldn't see out of just to keep her little shitty kid safe, let me tell you the sooner we can take the keys away from people who buy SUVs for anything other than "sports" or "utility" the fucking better.
Because
1) America basically gets all of our oil because they are a major consumer which is geographically very close. So that figure represents close to 100% of our production.
2) Saudi on the hand is half way round the world and america *still* gets a lot of oil from them. There total production is sent to europe, china, india and the rest of the world.
3) The oil sands are very costly to extract from compared to Saudi oil fields.
Also it doesn't really matter where America technically gets it's oil from. Oil is a global commodity traded on a vast scale and even if America imports zero barrels of oil from the Saudi's they will still be able to set the price. For example if the Saudi's cut their exports to China and Europe what will happen? Those consumers will start buying Canadian oil and the price goes up and Saudi makes more money for militants. America needs to use less oil.
So ... the answer is, what? Everybody should drive an SUV? Then the soccer moms will want something bigger because they want to be 'safer than the other guy'?
PS: That's only impacts with other vehicles, overall SUVs are not any safer, any kind of swerving or loss of concentration is much more likely to kill you in an SUV.
"According to NHTSA data, SUV's and pickups are at a disadvantage in single-vehicle accidents (such as when the driver falls asleep, or loses control swerving around a deer), which comprise 43% of fatal accidents, with more than double the chance of rolling over. This risk relates closely to overall US motor vehicle fatality data, showing that SUVs and pickups generally have a higher fatality rate than cars of the same manufacturer"
source
No sig today...
Does your definition of "you" include plumbers, gardeners, families with more than one small child per adult, handicapped, people with regular commute outside main train/bus routes?
Sorry, but there are lots of good station wagons/estate cars that the handicapped and big families use. They don't drive SUVs. They never needed and paid the money for that pile of metal with storage capacity equalling the former mentioned cars. Gardeners and plumbers drive small vans or station wagons, both yield a better price/milage for the storage they can hold.
People who already need a car and own one usually live outside town and park and switch to the metro before they get sucked in the traffic jam (You don't want to appear at random times for work, do you?). They usually own a small car or, if they have the money, a sports car. There is no room in the city you can't reach by public transport.
For handicapped (they have a permit anyway) the renault kangoo with built in lift is one of the cars of choice. But in the end I think that the navigation systems need to be fixed. The short route isn't always the best one. I know smaller towns with a motorway around, but the main street is still considered the best way for transit (same speed limits). They just have to deal with less lanes, traffic lights and streetcars (Not to mention second line parking and so on) in town. Somebody should tune the little gadgets to stay out of the city if the target isn't in it.
When how is that a problem?
They can do like lot of people do: They can use their car to reach the nearest train station and from there, use trains/RER/subways/buses etc. TFA doesn't state that SUV will be banned outside of Paris too.
On a side note, I live near Paris, I work in Paris. I don't have a car, and that's fine.
I'm not saying that car is bad. When you have to move furniture, or stuff, or in some other situations, car might actually be the wise choice.
But, from my experience, that's not how it's used. There are like 9 out of 10 cars used for only driving 1 person. And that's sad. I'm breathing this air.
So when it comes to diminution pollution, i'm all for it.
SUVs are trucks. They get truck tax breaks, truck emissions loopholes, and they're the big, powerful cars we call trucks. But somehow they do not require the truck license to drive them, which requires taking a different test for handling bigger, more powerful cars in some trickier maneuvers.
If all those soccer moms, yuppies and other people driving a car too big for them had to get a truck license instead of the drivers license they already got in high school, most of them would not. And there would be a whole lot less SUVs driving around. And most of their drivers, when they cut us off, would at least have the skills to do so more safely.
Such a simple change: require the truck license to drive the truck. Saving lives and sanity, not to mention fuel supplies.
--
make install -not war
Statistically, every single IC-powered car is guaranteed to emit CO2, NOx, SOx, and some amount of other pollutants including unburned hydrocarbons and metals every single time it goes anyplace.
Statistically, a tiny subset of battery-powered EV cars will experience a collision on any given trip, and a tiny subsubset of those vehicles will experience a leak from the battery as a result of that collision.
So if we want to look at environmental damage, you don't compare a single worst-case-scenario EV trip with a single best-case-scenario IC trip ... unless you are Glenn Beck.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?