Slashdot Mirror


Paris Bans Half of All Cars On the Road

cartechboy writes "Pollution is becoming a very large issue in major cities due to the amount of vehicles on the road. To try and help this issue Paris just banned all vehicles on alternate odd and even license plates today and tomorrow. Of course, electric cars and hybrids are exempt from the new restrictions as they aren't part of the problem, rather they are seen as part of the solution. Naturally taxis, buses, emergency vehicles, and cars carrying three or more passengers (hooray for carpooling) are also exempt. High levels of particulate matter are blamed for all the various respiratory diseases, while higher oxides of nitrogen are a primary cause of smog. We'd have to say that this ban probably won't be the last one as traffic levels increase over time."

405 comments

  1. purchase time by Icculus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Time for an extra set of plates...

    1. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what happened in Beijing when the city gov implemented a similar policy

    2. Re:purchase time by tommyatomic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or you could go the legal route and buy a cheap car for the days when your primary vehicle cant be driven. Odd or even days respectively.

      Are they also going to ban all those bloody scooters in paris. Those things are cheap to drive and the exhaust is filthy.

    3. Re:purchase time by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      And what will the rental car companies do?

    4. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Chile we have similar restrictions, and over time new car sales sky rocketed...

      You can even choose your last digit when registering tour car!!

      Smog is not so bad now, because of new car technologies, but traffic jams are everywhere.

    5. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't choose your plate number in France, and you get a new number when you buy even an old car. Which means you will have no other choice but to keep buying cars until you have the right plate combination. And then, find a way to park them in Paris without going bankrupt from the rent.

    6. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those two strokes are not exactly pollution free, and since they have zero emission controls, put out worse exhaust than a car with an engine a hundred times the displacement.

      It is easy to ban cars. It also scores the eco points. Does it fix the problem? Nope. Cars are always a nice whipping boy, and attacking low-hanging fruit is what politicians seem to do best at accomplishing.

    7. Re:purchase time by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are they also going to ban all those bloody scooters in paris. Those things are cheap to drive and the exhaust is filthy.

      Those things are serious polluters, both chemical and noise. There's nothing that ruins a nice stroll down the Seine like the grating buzz of a 2-stroke with CVT. And the way they just pile them on the sidewalks everywhere.. ugh.

    8. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obvious and proven solution for Athens, Greece since 1979.. !

    9. Re:purchase time by timeOday · · Score: 5, Informative
      No, because it's a ONE DAY BAN, and the first one since 1997. Even-numbered plates today, odd tomorrow. It's a specific measure for specific atmospheric conditions that made things smoggy in Paris at the moment.

      99% of the responses below (and above) are irrelevant because they ignore that very simple fact.

    10. Re:purchase time by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Maintain two separate vehicles in order to drive every day? Great, that's definitely better for the environment!

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    11. Re:purchase time by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Apparently they switched to a plate-follows-vehicle system in 2009:
      http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      La nouvelle immatriculation française qui est entrée en vigueur le 15 avril 2009 pour les véhicules neufs et le 15 octobre 2009 pour les véhicules d'occasion, se base sur le modèle AA-111-AA en vigueur depuis 1994 en Italie. Cette immatriculation est attribuée à vie au véhicule qui conserve donc cette immatriculation même s'il change de département ou de propriétaire.

      Google translate:
      The new French registration which entered into force April 15, 2009 for new vehicles and 15 October 2009 for used vehicles, based on the AA-AA-111 model in place since 1994 in Italy. This registration is granted "for life" to the vehicle retains its registration even if exchange department or owner.

    12. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time for an extra set of plates...

      system not available in France

    13. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ONE DAY BAN... Even-numbered plates today, odd tomorrow....

      I demand a recount.

    14. Re:purchase time by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Granted, 2-strokes can be and usually are annoying and a source of serious pollution. They don't have to be, though. I drive a direct injection 2-stroke, and while it still does burn oil, [t]he amount of oil is so small that it has no noticeable effect on emissions, and it has none of the pass-through problems with oil as in a carbureted 2-stroke. It is a rather silent, efficient, low-cost and comparatively eco-friendly means of transportation. So, while carbureted 2-stroke scooter engines are annoying, that does not mean that all scooter suck.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    15. Re:purchase time by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "It is easy to ban cars. It also scores the eco points. Does it fix the problem? Nope. "

      There was 60% less traffic, nothing to sneeze at. Also only 3000 fines 'til 10:30 AM.

    16. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing that ruins a nice stroll down the Seine like the grating buzz of a 2-stroke with CVT. And the way they just pile them on the sidewalks everywhere.. ugh.

      Well, there IS one other thing... the massive piles of dog shit everywhere on the sidewalks. Maybe they've cleaned that problem up since I was last visiting, but at the time it was about the most disgusting thing I'd ever seen in a "modern" City.

    17. Re:purchase time by timeOday · · Score: 2

      What vehicle do you drive? Direct injection has caused some excitement among motorcycle riders for the possibility of bringing back 2-stroke power/weight ratios, while also passing emissions regulations... but I haven't noticed any reach the market?

    18. Re:purchase time by mjwx · · Score: 2

      No, because it's a ONE DAY BAN, and the first one since 1997. Even-numbered plates today, odd tomorrow. It's a specific measure for specific atmospheric conditions that made things smoggy in Paris at the moment.

      99% of the responses below (and above) are irrelevant because they ignore that very simple fact.

      Welcome to /.

      If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event, all the gold medallists would be here.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re:purchase time by PPH · · Score: 1

      Can't drive my late model, clean car on certain days? Thank goodness I hung onto that deux chevaux.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    20. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This technique was used in Bogota, Colombia. What it caused is that now the car market is larger, people traded their car to buy two cheaper cars, and the used cars now include the license plate number on their sales ad.

    21. Re:purchase time by jbburks · · Score: 1

      As usual, this affects 80% of the people (who can only afford one car/person) severely. And the 1% won't even feel it, as they have either a stable of cars or the ability to call a black car service who will come with a car to take them wherever they want. The real solution is fewer people, but no one wants to look at that.

    22. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a truck driver from texas, eh ? :)

    23. Re:purchase time by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Why not just raise the emissions standards?

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    24. Re:purchase time by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      dunno about Paris but around here (thai) practically all the scooters are 4 stroke..

      and a 100 times the displacement? come on... 125cm^3*100 = 12500 cm^3...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    25. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geesus christ you guys are some egocentrical maniacs. me me me me me! Want more! Give!

    26. Re:purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I KNOW that they have clean ones.

    27. Re:purchase time by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      rent electric cars?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    28. Re:purchase time by flyneye · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I think the English are about to be able to make HELLA-GOOD deals on used cars.
      I figure only so many French will recycle them into plant pots and storage containers, some of them are bound to be running and saleable.
      The french will take the money and purchase green bicycles, pedal cars, hover-rounds and the Euro will get circulated nicely. Win ,win.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    29. Re:purchase time by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      I think he is talking about 50cc models, which are usually 2-stroke.
      Because anyone older than 14 can drive one, even without a license, they are the most common type. (Note : a license is now required in certain cases, but the requirements are still much lower than with 125cc models).

    30. Re:purchase time by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Welcome to /. If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event, all the gold medalists would be here.

      +1 for accuracy if I had mod points today

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    31. Re:purchase time by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The real solution is fewer people, but no one wants to look at that.

      Look at what, exactly speaking? Are you talking about some dystopia with mandatory birth control or outright mass murder of all the "extra" people? Because either of those seems a rather extreme solution compared to simply limiting car usage and eventually switching to electric, at least for city use.

      Also, China has looked at that - the mandatory birth control version, altough Chairman Mao is also the reigning world champion in mass murder - so if that's your cup of tea, apply for citizenship.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:purchase time by jbburks · · Score: 1
      I'm not looking for *mandatory*. Just stop subsidizing it.

      In the US, there's a tax credit per child. If you are on public assistance, the monthly payment goes up with the number of children.

      Instead of subsidizing children, why not pay people for either permanent or temporary contraception?

    33. Re:purchase time by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      If you are driving a scooter around, I assume it is pretty short commute distances. Why not go all electric?

    34. Re:purchase time by Meski · · Score: 1

      The government could work around this by issuing all odd or even plates to a family. Wonder if plates without numbers are considered even or odd?

    35. Re:purchase time by Meski · · Score: 1

      It's a one day ban now, but I bet they're considering longer term adoption. This is a pilot test.

    36. Re:purchase time by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'm not looking for *mandatory*. Just stop subsidizing it.
      In the US, there's a tax credit per child. If you are on public assistance, the monthly payment goes up with the number of children.

      So basically, you think it's a good idea to make sure already disenfranchised people have no stake whatsoever in the future of their country, the world or the human species?

      Instead of subsidizing children, why not pay people for either permanent or temporary contraception?

      Because the birth rate in countries that could afford that is already beneath the replacement rate. And the population growth in developing countries is falling in lockstep with rising quality of life (specifically, as an inverse of infant mortality). Basically, the population bomb is fizzling out on its own, so let it and concentrate on optimizing per-person resource usage instead. And one of the most efficient ways of doing that is ensuring they don't acquire an obsession with hoarding in the first place, which in turn requires subsidizing them to the point where their quality of life gets them past the first two steps of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

      We don't have too many people. We have too little concern for the Big Picture and the large-scale effects of our actions - selfishness, in other words. That problem would still be there even if population was halved.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    37. Re:purchase time by Finite9 · · Score: 1

      You brought up a point I was going to make... they did exactly the same thing, in Paris already, years ago! Was it really '97? I thought that it was permanent then, and did not realise it was only for one day.

      --
      "Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman
    38. Re:purchase time by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 1

      It's an Aprilia Scarabeo, see here or google ditech engine. Good overview of the advantages here.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    39. Re:purchase time by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 1

      I might with the next one, but this one is still running fine after > 22.000 km, consumes around 2 l/100 km of gas (7 l tank, excellent cruising radius) and ~ 300 ml/1000 km of 2-stroke oil. Plus, I don't have to worry about the rather huge distance between my electrical outlets and the scooter's parking space. Also, I'd have to spend ~ 4.000 EUR for a decent electric model, which I don't currently have to spare.

      Additionally, the direct injection engines are quite powerful. I have yet to test an electric scooter (other than a Segway, which is fun to drive, but no alternative), but I guess that an equally powerful electrical engine would have a considerably lower mileage. Things might look different at the time when I have to consider a new purchase.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    40. Re: purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No cars go", Arcade Fire, was perfect timing as I heard the news today and I had them playing. Well why aren't Parisians raising hell about this utter oppression taking place? Cars are not causing the pollution. Culturally, the millennium generation

    41. Re: purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arcade Fire "No cArs go"!!!!!!!!!!
                      Where is the Parisian out rage?
      Car pollution is not the culprit. Are the millennialists this lukewarm, indifferent and weak, while what is happening with the baby boomer sect- who are showing no opinion...it looks like major depression has taken over the minds of Parisians .
      I suggest you get on the same diet and/or anti depressants as your President Sarcozy et al , or it will end as one primed bastard taking over
      The freedoms of a beautiful people, en masse . Get on a raw diet now!!!

    42. Re: purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok I read the first 4 words of your opinion and I heard this: " Let me express how I really find this subject
      (Freedom) insignificant, and I will just riddle this subject it with meaningless humor.

    43. Re: purchase time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooooh menstrual!

  2. Paris had cars? by alen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    honestly that was the most shocking thing i've read in the last few days

    the way the europeans talk they live in ancient cities where smiling people happily bike, walk or take the train everywhere on thousand year old streets and the $8 a gallon gas makes life awesome

    except in evil USA where we suck up the world's resources driving everywhere

    1. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You built your cities so that biking, walking or taking the train isn't an option. That's that difference. Many people in Europe, most even, use cars daily, but they're not used for everything by everyone. If people want to take the train or ride a bicycle, they can, because the infrastructure exists. Imagine the traffic jams and the smog if these people also drove their cars everywhere.

    2. Re:Paris had cars? by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      Also those little boats with the guy pushing it with a big stick in Venice. I bet they use that all the time.

    3. Re:Paris had cars? by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NYC has like 10 million people that take the train in daily
      LA, Boston and others also have millions that take the train to work

      a lot of the cities in the US have less than a million people which isn't enough to pay for a train system

      and even with NYC traffic, there is no smog here. i remember when i grew up there was lots of smog. but with the new cars being clean and all you can look at manhattan and there is no more smog hanging over it. the sky over NYC is clearer than parts of colorado ive been to

    4. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paris had cars?

      Yes, Paris has cars. Lots of cars on big roads.

      Paris is a vast concrete megalopolis made of giant block tower apartments and muslims. You can't imagine it without going there. There are old parts that aren't an Orwellian concrete hell, but you can't afford to live there.

      Non-"low income" people that can afford it flee to smaller cities and villages. This flight began in the mid-2000s and is ongoing. This Hollande anti-car nonsense is just going to accelerate the process until Paris is the blight capital of Europe.

    5. Re:Paris had cars? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Ok LA just got their Trains back and didn't have subway system up until a few years ago. So. Cal. Did have the Pacific Electric Red Cars, the extensive street car system, until Firestone and GM conspired to get rid of it. After being born and raised in So. Cal, the only way around was on the highways and that meant by cars or buses being stuck with all the other folks in the jam.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    6. Re:Paris had cars? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      No we didn't, that would imply that there was actually some sort of planning going on. Here we have developers who buy a parcel of land and build whatever they want on it. It doesn't matter that they might throw up 1000 houses without any consideration of infrastructure or schools, they'll do it and it'll be up to the local governments to decide what should be done about infrastructure. Hence when some poor schmuck buys his dream home he suddenly realizes that there's no planning for transit and he has to sit on congested highways for hours just to get to/from work.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    7. Re:Paris had cars? by houstonbofh · · Score: 0

      Houston has a few million people and is a poster child for broken mass transit. There is no way to get around without a car, and most of them are actually trucks with large engines. Yet, we don't have the pollution problem of Paris, LA, Mexico City, or Beijing. Is it possible that pollution is slightly more complex than "It's all those evil cars!"

    8. Re:Paris had cars? by cruff · · Score: 1

      a lot of the cities in the US have less than a million people which isn't enough to pay for a train system

      Some metro areas with more than a million in population are also finding it hard to afford to install rail. The Denver metro area, which is approaching 3 million, is one exampleis having trouble funding the light rail northern extensions towards Boulder and Longmont, which will have to make due with increased bus service. Of course, it doesn't help that the Regional Transportation District seems to think that everyone must only want to go into Denver and back...

    9. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paris had cars?

      Yes, Paris has cars. Lots of cars on big roads.

      Paris is a vast concrete megalopolis made of giant block tower apartments and muslims. You can't imagine it without going there. There are old parts that aren't an Orwellian concrete hell, but you can't afford to live there.

      Non-"low income" people that can afford it flee to smaller cities and villages. This flight began in the mid-2000s and is ongoing. This Hollande anti-car nonsense is just going to accelerate the process until Paris is the blight capital of Europe.

      I wonder when we're getting around to blaming the Jews again.

    10. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had cars until this guy made them decide otherwise :)

    11. Re:Paris had cars? by operagost · · Score: 1

      You built your cities so that biking, walking or taking the train isn't an option.

      Well, that's a lie. Who ever heard of a city you couldn't walk in?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Paris had cars? by Alarash · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't the that American ass. Poor you, Europeans are meanies and you totally don't deserve anything they say about you :(

      According to the World Bank (who's not known to be particularly anti-American), the per-capita oil consumption in the US in 2010 was 1,108 kilograms (clearly they are, in fact, anti-american for not using gallons). France sits at a whopping 113. UK 241. Germany 223. So yes, please, tell me more about the poor Americans who are not sucking up all the oil.

    13. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a dick. I've been to states and in your case, when you can't walk to a mall right next to the (maybe 200 meters) hotel except walking by the very narrow side of the road and only after you get there, starts a side walk, which only goes to few restaurants, that's ridicilous. And to the other direction there was a pub or whatever and i had to walk from there, again on the side of the road at night, probably had a black t-shirt on too, maybe 500 meters. This just as a one example.

      I live in a country with not that many people, but a lot of space. In a way a similar construct to USA, where people are scattered around, so i understand the need for vehicles, but you are just being a douche.

    14. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? I live in Texas and visited NYC a few years ago. The air was practically unbreathable. There is definitely smog.

    15. Re:Paris had cars? by nickittynickname · · Score: 1

      Just wooshed and modded you down. Fixing with a comment.

    16. Re:Paris had cars? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      I'll be so happy once I can get from Downtown to Santa Monica and LAX on the train. I don't understand "car nuts", but my vehicle is a means to an end, and that's it. I'd much rather spend my hour commute reading or jotting down ideas, and listening to tunes (and talking to the occasional interesting person) than stuck in traffic staring at someone's tail lights.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    17. Re:Paris had cars? by reboot246 · · Score: 0

      That's the goal - big empty cities. (see Detroit)

    18. Re:Paris had cars? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Just keep thinking "conga line" and you'll understand. Yeah, commuting on a train isn't all that it's cracked up to be either. I worked with a guy one time who obtained his masters degree by leveraging his commuting time on the Long Island Rail Road. Also ask those poor souls on the MARC train awhile back how they like their commute on the train.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    19. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you trolling? Houston is the second most air-polluted city in the United States most years. It got better the last couple year and dropped to most polluted city outside of California (8th or so on the list). I find it hysterical that you name four cities with both horrible traffic and pollution (three of which are much larger than Houston) as justification for arguing that Houston is proof that car pollution is not a problem.

      It really isn't much more complex than "it's all those evil cars". According to international business time, the ban lowered Paris's pollution index to 66 from 185 over just three days. I live next to a major street that gets shut down for parades every once in a while. In about an hour, I can feel the difference in air quality when that happens.

    20. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a lot of the cities in the US have less than a million people which isn't enough to pay for a train system

      The whole Helsinki metro area, composed of Helsinki, Espoo and Vantaa has just a bit less than a million citizens, and yet, we have both a light rail network (tram), local train (heavy rail) network and a Metro. In addition to a bus network.

      So, WTF were you saying, again?

    21. Re:Paris had cars? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Smog in NYC is much more a factor of geography.

      LA, for example, is in a basin, and it pools, despite the ocean to the left.

      Also, HA!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

    22. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how many hours before you consider walking to not be an option. I've lived places that were too spread out to be able to get to typical working places, a grocery store and home in the same day without spending a couple hours of walking, or being one of the select few to live next to a store. Even if distances are not too far, one place I lived had crucial city buildings a 15 minute walk from the nearest bus stop, on a busy four lane road with no shoulder let alone sidewalk.

    23. Re:Paris had cars? by praxis · · Score: 1

      I think he or she meant that walking is not a viable mode of commuting for the majority of the working population.

    24. Re:Paris had cars? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      We built our cities hundreds of years ago. Europe has the "luxury" of having things torn down and rebuilt int he last 70 years.

      So if you wanna compare Berlin and New York, just try to remember when each of them was built.

    25. Re:Paris had cars? by PRMan · · Score: 2

      You can go to most of the suburbs in LA and you will see NOBODY on the sidewalks. Maybe a single jogger. Nothing else is close enough to walk TO.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    26. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit, I live in Chicago and take electric train 8 miles to work.

    27. Re:Paris had cars? by AdamHaun · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yet, [Houston doesn't] have the pollution problem of Paris, LA, Mexico City, or Beijing.

      Are you sure we don't? I looked at some EPA data, and it seems like on our bad days (in August) we're up in the particulate range that Paris is in now. We also have a lot of trouble with ozone. I'm pretty sure LA's air quality is better than ours now, or at least was for several years.

      I don't think comparing Houston to Mexico City or Beijing makes sense. They have a lot more people crammed into a smaller space with worse cars.

      --
      Visit the
    28. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That photo is from 1988. So, 26 years ago. Like he said, cleaner cars make a difference. The cleaner cars are the only reason Paris hasn't had to do this every year for the past decade or more.

    29. Re:Paris had cars? by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      NYC has like 10 million people that take the train in daily
      LA, Boston and others also have millions that take the train to work

      a lot of the cities in the US have less than a million people which isn't enough to pay for a train system

      and even with NYC traffic, there is no smog here. i remember when i grew up there was lots of smog. but with the new cars being clean and all you can look at manhattan and there is no more smog hanging over it. the sky over NYC is clearer than parts of colorado ive been to

      You don't need a million people to pay for a proper mass transit system - there are plenty of much smaller cities outside the US which have pretty good mass transit (subway, trains, trams, busses, and combinations). Honestly, most western European cities have decent mass transit.

    30. Re:Paris had cars? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Pacific Electric Streetcars went out of business because they were slow, expensive, and unprofitable. The stretch from downtown LA to Santa Monica averaged 13 mph. That was good compared to your options in 1905. By the 1930s, it was horribly slow.

      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/551/did-general-motors-destroy-the-la-mass-transit-system

    31. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parisians don't actually drive cars, they just light them to keep warm on the cold nights.

    32. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of 277 US metropolitan areas Houston ranks in the top 5% for high ozone days and in the top 10% for average partical polution. You may not have the pollution problem of LA or Mexico City, but there is a serious pollution problem.

    33. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You built your cities so that biking, walking or taking the train isn't an option. That's that difference. Many people in Europe, most even, use cars daily, but they're not used for everything by everyone. If people want to take the train or ride a bicycle, they can, because the infrastructure exists. Imagine the traffic jams and the smog if these people also drove their cars everywhere.

      haha, you are right. I actually live across the street from a grocery store, but I have to drive to it because it's a busy street without a pedestrian crosswalk.

    34. Re: Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that he's off base comparing Houston to those (much larger) cities.

      That said, so are you. Just because you're the worst in comparison to your peers doesn't mean you're objectively terrible. If all American cities were mostly unpolluted, being the worst of a good group wouldn't have any indication that you "have a serious problem."

    35. Re:Paris had cars? by pherth · · Score: 1

      While indeed lots of the buildings of many European cities were destroyed during WWII, most of them were rebuilt in place. That means the street layout of the cities was preserved. So the layout of many European cities usually goes back to the times before Columbus set off, sometimes even 2000 years back to Roman times.

    36. Re:Paris had cars? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The World Bank uses a world recognized unit of measure, and that somehow makes them anti-american? How did Americans get so paranoid?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    37. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the sky over NYC is clearer than parts of colorado ive been to

      My Chemistry teacher in high school used to live in Denver, Colorado (might have been Boulder?). They had a similar rule at the time (more than 20 years ago). Odd numbered plates on odd days, even on even and it was not just for a couple of days - it was normal policy.

      As he told it, the reason they had a constant rule was due to Chemistry and altitude. A large component of pollution N2O4 which is not laughing gas (N2O) When N2O4 is exposed to UV radiation, it reacts to form NO2 which has an orange color until an equilibrium is reached which also depends on other factors such as temperature and pressure. The reason Denver banned is because at the high altitude, and being in a valley, the NO2 concentrated and reacted heavily to create the orange hue. Given the different environment of New York, the same amount of pollutant may not have the same effect on air quality or color as it wouldn't react as much, would have a different equilibrium between the two gases and would also disperse and flow away from the city.

      I'm going on memory so I'm certain I have some details wrong but you get the basic idea. I have included a .pdf link.
      http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf

      New York may LOOK clearer than Denver at the time but that doesn't necessarily mean New York doesn't produce less pollution than Denver - there are many other factors at play. Local politics (Denver residents may have different air quality expectations than New Yorkers) may have been an influence even though it has nothing to do with absolute air quality. Practicality could also be an influence as New Yorkers apparently use a lot of public transportation and aren't burdened as much by not being able to drive whereas I imagine Denver uses cars more and most households probably have two cars.

    38. Re:Paris had cars? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is just the design of cities that is different. Cars (Germany may be the biggest european exception) are much more of a status/sex symbol than in europe. There is a reason why people talk about their experience in the back of the car as a teenager: those that don't drive their dates around don't get laid. If you bike in a lot of cities it has to be a cause. Oh you must be very enviromental, or you must be frugal/cheap etc. It can never be "just because", or God forbid: I actually prefer living within a 20 min bike ride of work rather than owning a car and driving an hour each way from the 'burbs.

    39. Re:Paris had cars? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      We built our cities hundreds of years ago. Europe has the "luxury" of having things torn down and rebuilt int he last 70 years.

      Heck, in some places, they've done it twice in the past 100 years.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    40. Re:Paris had cars? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Here in the U.S. a city banning cars on an odd/even basis might as well just declare itself closed for a couple days. I had to stop and think for a moment toe realize that in Paris it might not be that big a deal.

    41. Re:Paris had cars? by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      The US consumes 1/5 the energy in the world:
      http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/...

      Oil specifically, the US consumers 18.8 million bbl a day with 313 M population. The EU comes in a distant second with 12.8 million bbl a day with a population of 507 M.

      For the US, that means an expenditure of 2.5 gallons oil per person per day. For the EU, that means an expenditure of 1.1 gallons oil per person per day.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    42. Re:Paris had cars? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      He was saying that, not being a socialized country, most US cities can't get the taxpayers to fund the transportation of others so the expectation is that the public transportation system should be at least close to self-funded from ticket sales and not have the majority of the "revenue" hidden in the tax system.

    43. Re:Paris had cars? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      To those complaining about Houston's transit system, You need to visit Tampa and Tulsa. They are far far worse. Trust me. All Houston needs is a rail down I-45 to Galveston and a bus that runs along Highway 6 commenting to the NW transit station.

    44. Re:Paris had cars? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The Gulf of Mexico scrubs our smog out thanks to the wind. But if we were in a basin like LA, we would be in trouble. Although cars have been improving in emission standards over the last 10 years. So pollution has been holding its own even though our population has been growing at near terrifying rates year-over-year. The only license plate I haven't seen is one from Hawaii.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    45. Re:Paris had cars? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I don't know about comparisons between paris and american cities but I do know that weather patterns also play a role in how pollouted cities get. It is ultimately the wind and rain that remove polloution from the cities.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    46. Re:Paris had cars? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Oh really? I lived in Houston for 6 years, and some days the sky took on an awful greenish tint and you could smell the stink of refineries everywhere. All it took was the wind to be in the right direction.

      Houston doesn't have the inversion and no wind problems cities like LA has. If Houston were in a valley like LA, it would probably be pretty unbearable to live there. Houston is fortunate that the enormous pollution problem it has tends to blow away on the prevailing wind so you don't normally notice the pollution problem from vehicles and oil refineries because it blows away before it gets to high levels. But sometimes you get a glimpse of what it would be like if that weren't so when you got a temperature inversion, and if you flew above the city you could see that there was this nasty layer of slightly yellowish smog trapped under the inversion.

    47. Re:Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boston? Millions? Uh, no. Our infrastructure is so stupendously crippled and dysfunctional that it can barely handle 20 people taking the T from Copley to Park Street. The commuter rail has very limited locations. I don't even want to talk about the bus, or even worse... The silver line. Boston tries hard not to address its problems, so smugly it gave itself the title "The Walking City".

    48. Re:Paris had cars? by koyangi · · Score: 1

      To be fair, if you take out retirees and tourists then Tampa's transit problems go away. Of course so does 80% of its traffic. The point being that there is not much you can do about the "problem children" of Tampa other than yearly mandatory driving tests after a certain age. Not the same problem as Paris, NYC, Houston, etc...

    49. Re:Paris had cars? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      To be sure they could have used more investment but they weren't treated as a public utility. They were a private company which was sold to a front company funded by GM, Firestone and big oil who had vested interests in selling cars/buses, tires and gas. It was proven that they conspired to get rid of the Pacific Red car and other transportation systems around the country, not just in So. Cal. and the fines they paid dwarfed the damage that was caused.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    50. Re:Paris had cars? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The Pacific Electric Streetcars went out of business because they were slow, expensive, and unprofitable. The stretch from downtown LA to Santa Monica averaged 13 mph. That was good compared to your options in 1905. By the 1930s, it was horribly slow.

      This differs from driving on the LA freeways today how?

    51. Re:Paris had cars? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      They were a private company which was sold to a front company funded by GM, Firestone and big oil who had vested interests in selling cars/buses,

      Yes. And if that company had been profitable, it would not have been for sale. At the time, buses had huge advantages over electric streetcars.

    52. Re:Paris had cars? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily, everybody has their price and considering National City Lines was buying up all kinds of street car routes all over the country as no coincidence. That's why the justice department sued, and they were right to do that. Sure, cars/buses were newer and street car lines were competing with them, that's natural but don't say that GM, Firestone and Big Oil didn't help push them into early retirement by funding a company who came in, dismantled them and replaced them with buses not for the public good but for their own profit and monopolistic interests.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    53. Re: Paris had cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no single place called "Europe". It's a continent with many countries, some of which have cities where as many as 60% of all journeys are by bike while others are like France, where it's almost the same as the USA and nearly all journeys are by car.

  3. Mexico City tried this... by Nexzus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The found that people bought cheap older, less environment-friendly second vehicles so they could bypass the restrictions, making the problem worse.

    --
    Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
    1. Re:Mexico City tried this... by bob_super · · Score: 1

      There's a 100+ points inspection every two years for all cars older than 4 years, including smog. It's not free.
      Then again, if you can somehow afford to park a second car inside Paris (or any major euro/asia town) just for the rare day when pollution is an issue, you probably don't care about the cost of owning said car...

    2. Re:Mexico City tried this... by mlts · · Score: 2

      If Paris only does this once or twice, it can work. However, if this is done often, then people will buy vehicles just to have both types of plates.

      Another way that this can be handled is to have the digit on the license plate be different each time for a ban. So, some cars might differ with the last digit, but the second digit may be the same, which would accomplish the objective.

      Not saying the objective is helpful, but Paris is different from Mexico City because they tend to have more modes of transportation (streetcar, train, tram, Puppeteer teleport pads) than in America [1], so someone might be inconvenienced, but it won't be a show-stopper.

      [1]: America as in the continent, not the United States.

    3. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it speaks volumes about the sorry state of Mexican government that they couldn't nip that loophole in the bud.

    4. Re:Mexico City tried this... by lgw · · Score: 2

      A modern ULEV vehicle (which is most of the smaller imports available in America) has effectively no pollution, and certainly no particulate matter. The old joke was that driving a ULEV car through LA would actually clean the air (and that was likely true on a bad day).

      Banning older vehicles solves a real problem. Imposing emissions standards on lawncare equipment solves a real problem. This is just feelgood nonsense.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      [1]: America as in the continent, not the United States.

      America is a country. North America and South America are continents.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The found that people bought cheap older, less environment-friendly second vehicles so they could bypass the restrictions, making the problem worse.

      see this?

      > There's a 100+ points inspection every two years for all cars older than 4 years, including smog. It's not free.

      you're just being willfully ignorant at this point. stop.

    7. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people actually can afford a second vehicle? Some comments here and below make it sound like nearly everyone can, so there is zero impact, whereas if only 10% say could afford that such measures would still have a big impact. It seems easy enough to fix too by just making sure that every license plate assigned to the same person has the same last digit or such. And if you have multiple family members with their own cars... well that is going to happen in many cases anyway. Many such laws are not going to get around the fact people with money have more options, even if it amounts to hiring people to ride with them for carpooling.

    8. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that Paris does not have enough parking space for this. There is almost no free parking spot left. Metered parking is so expensive in the area that it was cheaper to pay fines than fees until last year (and guess what? they doubled the fines...).

    9. Re:Mexico City tried this... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      OED says: "America, the name of a land mass of the Western hemisphere, consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by the Isthmus of Panama".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Imposing emissions standards on lawncare equipment solves a real problem.

      Banning two stroke engines would do so much for our air quality. I have read that Briggs & Stratton have a lot of clout in Congress and have worked to shoot down multiple attempts at regulating small engines.

    11. Re:Mexico City tried this... by bob_super · · Score: 2

      The standards keep getting better fast.

      The old cars are weeded out by the other "safety" inspection points:
      Broken light? fail!
      Shoddy suspension? fail!
      Leak on any fluid? fail!
      You can fix it, until you realize that your old car is costing you two grand every other year, just to pass obscure inspection points. So you get a newer less polluting one, or take the Metro.
      The cars and parts makers love it, except that people now only buy if they have to.

      I don't understand how the US hasn't caught up with this yet. When you see the deathtraps on US roads, it would be easy to line up car maker pockets with "safety" maintenance requirements. To "protect the children" of course...

    12. Re:Mexico City tried this... by peppepz · · Score: 4, Informative

      This measure is not experimental, it has been used in Europe since the 80s. People won't buy another car to bypass the restriction because owning a car is very expensive (insurance, taxes, ...) and if you can afford that then probably you could as well pay the fines for ignoring the law. Less environment-friendly vehicles often can't enter the city centres at all, because there it's common to put restriction on car access depending on their "euro rating".

    13. Re:Mexico City tried this... by sidnelson13 · · Score: 1

      It's about time they restrict (or at least make it more difficult) for people to have older cars instead of new. Like Japan. The older the car gets, the more expensive it it to keep it with the regulations.

      For example, the same thing should be applied to Brazil (where I live). Here, licensing and taxes for older cars are cheaper than newer ones, because it's based percentage of market value. And if the car reaches 20 years-old, it's not even taxed anymore. It's stupid, making it easy for some ignorant douche to keep a dangerous, slow, polluting piece of 80's crap on the street. It should be the other way around.

    14. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Charliemopps · · Score: 0

      I take it you don't know how to beat a smog inspection? The easiest way is to make sure both cars are the same make/model and just switch the plates when it's time for the inspection. The more difficult ways involve you knowing how to turn a wrench (or at least know someone that does) but it's not really all that difficult. I think you'd be surprised just how easy it is.

    15. Re:Mexico City tried this... by bob_super · · Score: 1

      Ask someone parking in a US metropolis what they think of an 11 Euros fine, and they'll point at the nearest car park, which asks for more than that, sometimes twice, for the first half hour...
      They've got room to raise the tickets, the Provinciaux will be amused at the outrage.

    16. Re:Mexico City tried this... by mikael · · Score: 1

      So then you just buy a new second-hand car that has just passed the inspection.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    17. Re:Mexico City tried this... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      The standards keep getting better fast.

      The old cars are weeded out by the other "safety" inspection points: Broken light? fail! Shoddy suspension? fail! Leak on any fluid? fail! You can fix it, until you realize that your old car is costing you two grand every other year, just to pass obscure inspection points. So you get a newer less polluting one, or take the Metro. The cars and parts makers love it, except that people now only buy if they have to.

      I don't understand how the US hasn't caught up with this yet. When you see the deathtraps on US roads, it would be easy to line up car maker pockets with "safety" maintenance requirements. To "protect the children" of course...

      In Houston (and most medium to large cities in the US) we have similar standards and requirements. And in our house we have a 2007 Subaru, and a 1988 Toyota Pickup (Hi-Lux to the rest of the world) that we drive daily. Guess which one runs better, and costs less to maintain? Let me give you a hint... When it is time for a new car, the Subaru is going... And the "New" car may be more mature than you think.

    18. Re:Mexico City tried this... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      One of the checks when I got my last smog inspection was a check of the VIN. The VIN plates are not so easily changed, though they only checked the one in the drivers'-side windshield, not the chassis (door-jam and firewall) or engine one.

    19. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't a country named America. There's Canada, The United States of America, Mexico and others that are found in America which is broken into 2 continents called North and South America.

    20. Re:Mexico City tried this... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      America as in the continent, not the United States.

      "The Americas" is the term you are looking for.

    21. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are too busy at failing to control the drug cartels and ending corruption to be worried about failing at lowering car pollution.

    22. Re:Mexico City tried this... by bob_super · · Score: 1

      Even when I lived in Illinois, they checked my VIN. Which state has smog inspections where they only check the plates?

      Why would I want two identical cars just so that one of them can freely fail the smog check?

    23. Re:Mexico City tried this... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They've failed. 2 stroke engines have a maximum allowed displacement which is progressing steadily down. Down to weedeaters today.

      They will get my 2 stoke Toro lawnmower when they pull it from my cold dead fingers. Yamaha motor, it will likely outlive me.

      Also note: Briggs & Stratton might once have had a lot of clout. Before they moved production to China. Today, not so much.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re:Mexico City tried this... by s122604 · · Score: 1

      I've always been surprised that as progressive as Europe is about most things, their vehicle emissions standards are not up to American vehicles built to a 50 state (i.e. "california emission") which most are these days.

    25. Re:Mexico City tried this... by bob_super · · Score: 1

      Yep, it buys you two years, until the next inspection.
      You can't sell your car without providing the buyer with a safety inspection certificate under three months old, so you'd better schedule your car change carefully, or pay one more time.

    26. Re:Mexico City tried this... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Since you take a British English dictionary for the definition of The Americas, should we check Websters for Britain?
      "1 [...]Great Britain 2 united kingdom 3 commonwealth of nations "

      So whenever I need to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations, I'll just call it "Britain". The dictionary says so. After all, that is your argument, right?

    27. Re:Mexico City tried this... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They check VINs in CA. But they make a fuel additive that works wonders.

      The best way to beat a smog check is to get a smog exempt car. Everybody want's them, so pre 75 cars big enough to hold a V8 (e.g. a 57 FIAT 500) are worth a lot.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:Mexico City tried this... by operagost · · Score: 1

      I consciously purchased a 4-stroke Troy-Bilt trimmer because I wanted to produce less pollution, but with a 4-step startup process that has already worn out the pull rope after four years, I'm regretting it.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    29. Re:Mexico City tried this... by operagost · · Score: 1

      You need to get out more. There are vanishingly few "death traps" on Pennsylvania or NJ highways. We do safety inspections here. Maybe you live in New Mexico. For God's sake, don't start asking for more unconstitutional federal intervention.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    30. Re:Mexico City tried this... by rsborg · · Score: 1

      A modern ULEV vehicle (which is most of the smaller imports available in America) has effectively no pollution, and certainly no particulate matter. The old joke was that driving a ULEV car through LA would actually clean the air (and that was likely true on a bad day).

      Banning older vehicles solves a real problem. Imposing emissions standards on lawncare equipment solves a real problem. This is just feelgood nonsense.

      So why then has the EU and CA established even higher restrictions on emissions? Could it be that SULEV, PZEV, or ZEVs actually make a tangible difference?

      I visited France again (Paris, Tours and Grenoble) a three years ago, and the one thing I remember is feeling that the inner parts of cities (centre-ville and environs, or most of metro Paris) literally stank of exhaust - likely because turbo-diesels are so popular in Europe (if I didn't own a high-mpg hybrid here already, I might have bought one stateside). I don't remember this impression 10 years ago. I'm sure the problem has steadily gotten worse.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    31. Re:Mexico City tried this... by ruir · · Score: 1

      This is the point. This measure once again only is against the poor who are not able to buy a 2nd car. Plus, in some European cities, like Lisbon my home town, public transportation is too much centralised (i.e. if you coming out of the main places, you have to change several times), inefficient, under-provisioned, insufficient or inexistent after business hours and expensive - and they have doubled the prices preparing for a nearby privatisation. No matter how much they talk about capacity or ecology, it is not a real alternative.

    32. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Under etymology. If you want to be pedantic, be better at being pedantic. The definition was basically summed up in in this excerpt: "an ultimate or idealized destination or aim"

      So, you know...

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    33. Re:Mexico City tried this... by bob_super · · Score: 1

      > We do safety inspections here.

      How do you like being in the minority?

      You need to get out more, there are lots of death traps still out there to amaze you.

    34. Re:Mexico City tried this... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Troy-Bilt is now just MTD. Never buy anything built by MTD. Never!

      It's fucking amazing that it lasted 4 years. You must baby it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    35. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will get my 2 stoke Toro lawnmower when they pull it from my cold dead fingers.

      Since you are the closest person to it when it is polluting, the pollution will likely kill you first!

    36. Re:Mexico City tried this... by lgw · · Score: 1

      So why then has the EU and CA established even higher restrictions on emissions? Could it be that SULEV, PZEV, or ZEVs actually make a tangible difference?

      Don't assume any overlap between politics and reality - you can't reason from "a law was passed about X" to "a law was needed about X".

      Air quality has steadily improved in US cities for a couple of decades now. Consumer tailpipe emissions stopped being the dominant factor in air quality some time ago, with 2-strokes taking over (and heavy trucks and other heavy equipment still playing a role).

      Old-school diesels are a menace to air quality. You can tell the latest ones in cars in the US are a difference in kind, as the back bumper is no longer stained black around the exhaust. There's really no excuse for particulate emissions with current tech.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    37. Re:Mexico City tried this... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Under etymology.

      Obviously, it got snubbed!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    38. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I want to pay for two cars, keeping one up to inspection standards anyway, to cheat out an inspection? Why not just pay enough to keep one car in good working order?

    39. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What country is named Mexico? Do you mean the United Mexican States?

    40. Re:Mexico City tried this... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Since you take a British English dictionary for the definition of The Americas

      You're sure that it's a "British English" dictionary? All its sources include both British and American texts. OED is supposed to be "the definitive record of the English Language", leaving nothing important out. (Not even Aussies!) Sure, if you were talking about one of the "concise" versions, that would make sense - there's the Oxford Dictionary of English which is based on the British National Corpus, and its American English counterpart, the New Oxford American Dictionary, which is based on an American English Corpus. But a suggestion that the OED itself (which is a distinct work from both) is a "British English dictionary" sounds preposterous to me.

      So whenever I need to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations, I'll just call it "Britain". The dictionary says so.

      Webster as an authority? Sure, if you're bold. The thing is, I've never seen anybody to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations as just "Britain", but everyone around here in Europe uses "America" either for the US, or for the combined NA+SA landmass, quite unambiguously based on the context.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    41. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      They've failed. 2 stroke engines have a maximum allowed displacement which is progressing steadily down. Down to weedeaters today.

      They've succeeded in continuing to sell 2 stroke weedeaters that produce more smog than a Hummer.

    42. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I've seen some utter shite heaps on Ohio roads. You wonder how they even move. One I saw had been seriously front ended - it was buckled half way to the windshield, and consequently had no front lights. I thought maybe the owner hadn't got round to taking it to be fixed, but then I saw it again a month later, unchanged apart from a bit more rust.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    43. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 0

      The thing is, I've never seen anybody to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations as just "Britain", but everyone around here in Europe uses "America" either for the US, or for the combined NA+SA landmass, quite unambiguously based on the context.

      Right, on that side of the pond. On this side of the pond, I've never heard anyone utter the phrase "Commonwealth of Nations". (I'm sure Canadian's do, but we tune them out, since half of everything they say is French anyway.) But calling it all "Britian", heck yeah.

      In other news, Europeans telling people in far-away places what they should call themselves went out with things like them being the only ones capable of making guns and having smallpox antibodies.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    44. Re:Mexico City tried this... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The thing is, I've never seen anybody to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations as just "Britain",

      I agree, but Americans are bad with geography, and English is descriptive, not proscriptive, so "wrong" words are words nonetheless.

      but everyone around here in Europe uses "America" either for the US, or for the combined NA+SA landmass, quite unambiguously based on the context.

      And in the US, "America" is unambiguously "The USA". "The Americas" is the combined landmass.

      One reason I hear "America" as being The Americas are false friends in Spanish and other languages that the bilingual people insist are cognates.

      In the USA "North America" means "Mexico, USA, and Canada". That's US only, and I'd presume it to be inconsistent with the rest of the world. Latin America is everything south of Mexico or an island. Yes, that means Bermuda isn't in "North America" but is in "Latin America" despite being British Territory that is part of the North American Continent. I never claimed linguistic consistency, just accuracy.

      There is inconsistency on whether "Latin America" includes South America. "Central America" is almost never used in the US, so I couldn't give an indication as to a precise meaning in American English.

    45. Re:Mexico City tried this... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It's complicated. Basically there are between 4 and 7 continents depending on where and when you grew up.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    46. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but everyone around here in Europe uses "America" either for the US, or for the combined NA+SA landmass, quite unambiguously based on the context."
      You should fix that. Just like if I hear people say " I'd like to visit England and kiss the blarney stone" I inform them that's wrong.

    47. Re:Mexico City tried this... by rsborg · · Score: 1

      >

      Old-school diesels are a menace to air quality. You can tell the latest ones in cars in the US are a difference in kind, as the back bumper is no longer stained black around the exhaust. There's really no excuse for particulate emissions with current tech.

      This quite a non-sequitur - most of europe's diesels are as clean as the new diesels you see in CA - the reason CA disallowed them for years was the lack of availability of low-sulfur diesel fuel..

      Tailpipe emissions are exactly why France's cities stink. I know, the number of cars on the road there has multiplied, while the capacity to meet them has not (and likely cannot).

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    48. Re:Mexico City tried this... by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      I know this is way late but: -2 Stroke lawnmowers haven't even been common since the 60s. 4 Stroke has been king for a long, long time here. -Modern 2 stroke can be designed with something called direct Injection, which is solid and very far from vaporware. Emissions are less than 4 strokes(!!) People tend to vent there anger on small engines toward 2 strokes but really aside from string trimmers, weed eaters, and pole saws/chainsaws, there is very little in the way of 2 stroke use (in the US). Further, 2 stroke has a distinct power to weight advantage. Retrofitting direct injection onto existing 2strokes in places where they are dominant is a lot more environmentally sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... "EnviroFit, a non-profit corporation sponsored by Colorado State University, has developed direct injection retrofit kits for two-stroke motorcycles in a project to reduce air pollution in Southeast Asia, using technology developed by Orbital Corporation of Australia.[64] The World Health Organization says air pollution in Southeast Asia and the Pacific causes 537,000 premature deaths each year. The 100-million two-stroke taxis and motorcycles in that part of the world are a major cause.[65][66]" The EnviroFit quote is just one example, please do check wikipedia on this one if you are curious. Look I'm no shill of Briggs and Stratton, just trying to set the facts straight. I am, however, a big fan of old 2 stroke motorcycles like the Yamaha RDs and other cool old 2 strokes. I'd love to fit mine up with a direct injection kit, but because 2 stroke has been so successfully combined in peoples minds with pollution and smoke (for good reason admittedly, without direct injection these things are pretty dirty, but the tech isnt rocket science and has been around for decades) 2 stroke direct injection retrofits are expensive and few between. Thats because very few 2 stroke motorcycles have even been sold since the 80s here in the US. Honda has been fairly instrumental to the 2 strokes demise, as any MotoGP fan will tell you. Anyway, I'm going to save this as an early draft for the token "Ugh get rid of the 2 strokes" comments I read a lot.

    49. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      People tend to vent there anger on small engines toward 2 strokes but really aside from string trimmers, weed eaters, and pole saws/chainsaws, there is very little in the way of 2 stroke use (in the US).

      So...except for the hundreds of thousands of two stroke engines polluting our air every day, there are barely any two stroke engines?

    50. Re:Mexico City tried this... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      OED says: "America, the name of a land mass of the Western hemisphere, consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by the Isthmus of Panama".

      It also says "Used as a name for the United States" right on the very next line.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    51. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're sure that it's a "British English" dictionary? All its sources include both British and American texts.

      No one gives a fuck about your pedantry.

      Why don't you go find some cock to suck instead of posting your useless crap.

    52. Re:Mexico City tried this... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Chainsaws are still 2 stroke and come in quite large models, much more power then your lawnmower. http://www.husqvarna.com/us/fo... is close to 120 CC and Stihl has the 880 which IIRC is also over a 100 CC.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    53. Re:Mexico City tried this... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      WTF? A four step start procedure? I have a 4 stroke Stihl (fs130) and you just pump the bubble a couple of times, choke and pull the cord. Don't even need those steps on a hot day. Runs mix as well so no engine oil to change. Buddy has a Husky which is actually a Honda. Same thing except it runs straight gas and needs the oil changed now and again.
      Both weedeaters are nicer then the 2 strokes, maximum torque at lower rpms and quieter.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    54. Re:Mexico City tried this... by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Um this is why you bribe the person doing the inspection.
      Broken light? Bribe!
      Shoddy suspension? Bribe!
      Leak on any fluid? Bribe!
      Far cheaper and everyone wins (except the future)

    55. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll work here. The reason (and condition) is that such restriction doesn't happen on a regular basis.

      The last time it happened in Paris was in 1997. Now it's 2014.

      You don't buy an old car for the sole purpose of being ready for an event that happens every 17 years (and it'd be a shame if you actually bought one, waited 17 years and then find out on THE day that the f******g thing doesn't want to start).

    56. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Europe, not the U.S. Vehicle safety inspectors won't accept bribes and a small percentage of cars are re-checked by the nation vehicle safety agency.

    57. Re:Mexico City tried this... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      There's a 100+ points inspection every two years for all cars older than 4 years, including smog.

      Here in the UK the rules on such things are not retroactive. Your car only has to pass based on the emissions requirements that were in place at the time it was made. So if your second car is an older model it likely has worse emissions. I don't know for sure about france but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't much the same.

      Then again, if you can somehow afford to park a second car inside Paris (or any major euro/asia town) just for the rare day when pollution is an issue, you probably don't care about the cost of owning said car...

      What about people who live in suburbia but work in the city?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    58. Re:Mexico City tried this... by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      NJ dropped safety inspections in 2010, its now emissions only. They found that the safety inspections weren't all that effective in improving the actual safety of the cars on the road. Road salt is effective at taking older cars off of the roads here more so than any inspection.

    59. Re:Mexico City tried this... by rhazz · · Score: 1

      America is neither a country nor a continent when there is no context, and it is not the official name of any of those things. Mlts clarification was justified. To say that because you colloquially refer to yourself as America and therefore everyone else also must do so is... stereotypical I guess. I'm sure you'll assume I'm biased because I'm Canadian, but we don't normally refer to our southern neighbour as America either, we usually call it "the US" or even "the states". But then we probably do so just to piss off everyone that demands we call it America :)

    60. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      [America] is not the official name of any of those things.

      Neither is Mexico. Neither is the United Kingdom. Neither is Norway. No one gives a shit about the official name.

      I mean, do you throw a fit because people dare call the country Iceland, because technically that's the name of the island, not the country? No, because it's obvious from context.

      Arrogant or not, we refer to ourselves as American. Name another nationality that does? So it should be pretty clear.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    61. Re:Mexico City tried this... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      hmm, seems I was mistaken, while it's an island it seems it does have road links to the mainland so you wouldn'thave to change modes of transport.

      Still it provides a pretty clear line for the edge of the restrictions which most cities don't have.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    62. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safety and/or emissions inspections are already the norm in large parts of the US. Thing is, with new cars costing, on average, $30k, even a couple grand in repairs to pass inspection is MUCH cheaper then buying a new car. In the US, most cars are retired when they suffer a single mechanical failure, or collision, whose repair cost exceeds the car's value. At which point they are rather promptly scrapped.

      Strict inspection regimes (Japan's Shaken comes to mind) do lead to accelerated vehicle retirement, but simply export the problem. In Japan, retired vehicles are generally still road-worthy (or need what Americans consider to be minor repairs). They are simply exported and re-sold in countries with less strict inspection regimes.

    63. Re:Mexico City tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tried this in New Zealand decades ago, same thing happened!

    64. Re:Mexico City tried this... by rhazz · · Score: 1

      It is not arrogant to call yourselves American, or to refer to your country as America. It is arrogant to expect people outside the US to refer to it that way in all contexts.

    65. Re:Mexico City tried this... by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      I was talking about in the US dude. And yeah, there are BARELY any on the road here.

  4. Carpooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So what happens when it's my day to drive the carpool, and I need to go pick up everyone? I'm the only person in the car when I set out.

    1. Re:Carpooling by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Time to buy a few RealDolls.

    2. Re:Carpooling by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yeah,(almost) anyone already living inside the city has enough public transit at their disposal that carpooling isn't going to be the sensible solution to this requirement.

    3. Re:Carpooling by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Time to buy a few RealDolls.

      No, really Mom! It's for the car pool!

    4. Re:Carpooling by ThePhilips · · Score: 3, Informative

      Carpooling typically covers only the city itself.

      If you live in the city - then you normally take the mass transit.

      If you live outside the city, then you pick up your carpooling friends outside the city.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    5. Re:Carpooling by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. Has anyone got a car analogy for me?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    6. Re:Carpooling by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      However, drivers of electric and hybrid vehicles will be exempt from the restrictions, reports The Independent, as are taxis, buses, emergency vehicles and cars carrying three or more people.

  5. Totalitarian Agenda at its finest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just because I want to drive a smoke and particulate belching internal combustion engined powered vehicle is no reason for me to have to consider the consequences of my actions!

    If other people have lung cancer, they should sue me in court if they can prove it was my vehicle's exhaust that caused it!

    1. Re:Totalitarian Agenda at its finest! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Or just shoot you!

      Hey, if you want to go libertarian, at least go all the way!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Totalitarian Agenda at its finest! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0

      Many of the same people who call themselves libertarians also express the viewpoint that man's activities cannot possible influence our ecology.

    3. Re:Totalitarian Agenda at its finest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have to deny that man's actions can influence the environment, much as they have to deny that deregulating the wireless spectrum would lead to it being unusable.

      Negative externalities and natural monopolies are bullets to the head of libertarian 'thought' -- their only options are to deny that they exist or admit that their ideas are nonsense.

    4. Re:Totalitarian Agenda at its finest! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Many of the same people who call themselves libertarians also express the viewpoint that man's activities cannot possible influence our ecology.

      It's my experience that most of the people who make assumptions about social groups they aren't a part of are full of shit, either by ignorance or intent.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Totalitarian Agenda at its finest! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0

      Apparently some libertarians also like to engage in ad hominem attacks.

    6. Re:Totalitarian Agenda at its finest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the same people who call themselves libertarians also express the viewpoint that man's activities cannot possible influence our ecology.

      Many idiots make baseless generalizations which reveal their own ignorance
      and unwillingness to actually think.

    7. Re:Totalitarian Agenda at its finest! by Argos · · Score: 1

      I think that the AC was being sarcastic.

  6. Paris wasn't built for cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The traffic in Paris will collapse long before smog will become a problem on most days of the year. Like most old European cities, Paris just wasn't built for cars. A traffic jam of electric cars is not going to help.

    1. Re:Paris wasn't built for cars by bob_super · · Score: 2

      you can hear the symphony of horns a lot better with the pesky idling ICEs...

    2. Re:Paris wasn't built for cars by alen · · Score: 1

      like a lot of old european cities paris has an old part that's a tourist trap and a new modern part where most of the work and living gets done

    3. Re:Paris wasn't built for cars by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Paris wasn't built for 12 millions inhabitants...

    4. Re:Paris wasn't built for cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paris wasn't built for 12 millions inhabitants...

      Paris doesn't have 12 million inhabitants.

    5. Re:Paris wasn't built for cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A traffic jam of electric cars is not going to help.

      It will for smog.

  7. Solution: two license plates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This will unfairly effect those with one car, persons with two or more cars will be likely able to circumvent this.
    Carpooling will only go so far as everyone will have to get out at the same place or risk the driver receiving a ticket.

    1. Re:Solution: two license plates by sexconker · · Score: 2

      This will unfairly effect those with one car, persons with two or more cars will be likely able to circumvent this.
      Carpooling will only go so far as everyone will have to get out at the same place or risk the driver receiving a ticket.

      Real Solution: Move out of ancient, crowded, poorly-maintained city.

    2. Re:Solution: two license plates by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      Actually, this has been tried in Italy, and it works at 50%

      The 50% not working: reducing pollution. statistics in the city where I live showed that the reduction was way below targets. people organized, and most of the people commuting had already organized before, using trains, metro and the like (they were pissed at the limitation nonetheless)

      The 50% working: the powers that be decided that it was a huge success, and that it was a matter of scale (i.e., too few days of alternate plates), and anyway it was a symbolic gesture. Even this way, the measure was scrapped here for good two years ago.

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    3. Re:Solution: two license plates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would require people to be organized and have plans. It also requires that there be a rotation or allowance of areas to be "fallow". That would require effort too, and of course planning, so that wouldn't work.

  8. Misleading headline by flaming+error · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not a new concept, still an interesting development.

    But they didn't ban half of the cars, they banned half of the driving.

  9. Diesel emissions justification by richtopia · · Score: 1

    For years now we have heard that the high diesel emissions requirements here in the states have been preventing the direct importing of the plentiful European diesel cars. I've heard that the diesel emissions are a large contributer to this smog, particularly NOx.

    Does not change my opinion that we need more diesels on the road.

    1. Re:Diesel emissions justification by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I've heard that the diesel emissions are a large contributer to this smog, particularly NOx.

      You could have no diesels on the road and you'd still have just about as much smog. We discussed here on slashdot a little while ago about how the emissions tests were flawed in that they were poor at detecting PM2.5, the finest particles accounted for in such tests. These particles are the most harmful to health, because they are too small to be expelled from the lungs by cilia. You have to wait until they get mixed into some sputum and expelled from the lungs. They're also dandy for the formation of fog particles, or dare I say, smog particles?

      Modern passenger diesels have significant emissions controls. The number one more offensive consumer of diesel is container ships. Some ports are actually instituting restrictions on permitted fuels, and vessels will either have to carry multiple fuels or they'll have to be towed into and out of port by a compliant vessel. I suppose we could do this for multi-tank diesel vehicles as well. I know I wouldn't want to be sitting where the tailpipe of my 7.3 liter F250 is when the truck takes off from a light, especially when it's filled with dino juice. But then, it gets almost double the towing mileage of the gasser...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Is not going to work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Bogota, Colombia (almost 8 millions of inhabitants) this measure is called "Pico y Placa". The natural answer from the people was buy a second car, so they will have two or more cars, some with even license plate and some with odd license plate. As a result, the number of cars nearly doubles itself making worst the solution than the original problem.

    1. Re:Is not going to work! by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah. It only works in the short term. In the long term what can be done is the same thing they do in Singapore. They have a limited number of license plates for driving all week and those are auctioned. Weekend only license plates have no such restrictions.

      They dump the auction profits into the public transportation system.

    2. Re:Is not going to work! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But hey, it would solve the problem with the failing car industry, European countries have been trying for years to increase car sales, this could just be the solution!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Is not going to work! by Shados · · Score: 1

      If you can afford the extra hundred thousand dollar(s) for the dedicated parking spot with your house in Paris, your taxes will cover any issues that come up from having a second car =P

      (Disclaimer: I don't know if things work the same way on the other side of the ocean, but buying a second parking spot where I live would bring me down $100k)

    4. Re:Is not going to work! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      That almost sounds like cap-and-trade. Apparently such market-based solutions are too much for Americans these days, and they will call them communism.

    5. Re:Is not going to work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which just dumps all the pollution into Malaysia :)

    6. Re:Is not going to work! by NapalmV · · Score: 1

      How comes that if public transit is such a Good Thing(TM), people don't use it "enough" and it ends up being subventioned by motorists?

    7. Re:Is not going to work! by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's not market-based if the government is creating the market.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Is not going to work! by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      Sees like the solution would be to ensure that everyone in that family/household gets only 1 type of plates.

    9. Re:Is not going to work! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      That almost sounds like cap-and-trade. Apparently such market-based solutions are too much for Americans these days, and they will call them communism.

      Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it appears your post can be summed up as:

      I like A.

      A is not B.

      Americans are dumb for not liking B.

      That said, cap-and-trade is a fuckin' scam, bro. That's why Americans don't like it - it's just a way for rich, self-righteous fuckers like Gore and Gates to buy the right to pollute the shit out of the environment, while sticking regular folks like you and I with the bill.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Is not going to work! by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      The use of road ways is a scarce resource. You are seeing the tragedy of the commons play out. A government run market is still a market. It is pretty much the same thing as power and water. Weekday and weekend plates make no sense though. The cell phone companies had it right with free nights and weekends. You really only have to shave of the peak demand.

    11. Re:Is not going to work! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Their problem is Singapore isn't large enough to cover the entire place with asphalt and parking lots.

    12. Re:Is not going to work! by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah. It only works in the short term. In the long term what can be done is the same thing they do in Singapore. They have a limited number of license plates for driving all week and those are auctioned. Weekend only license plates have no such restrictions.

      They dump the auction profits into the public transportation system.

      Singapore is a small, very connected city with a very good public transport system and extremely well regulated taxi system (which makes them incredibly cheap, I've never paid over SG$30 for a cab from any two points in SIN), in fact Singapore taxi's are so well regulated your average libertarian would die of fright (especially considering how cheap they are).

      So limiting the number of cars works well in a place like Singapore, but it wouldn't work in many other cities including Paris

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Is not going to work! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Simple work-arounds: Issue plates based on your birthdate - even birthdate, even plate; odd birthdate, odd plate. Or issue odd numbered plates to people who already have odd numbered plates and even plates to those who already have even plates.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    14. Re:Is not going to work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've seen Colombia doesn't have anywhere near the roadworthy requirements. Most of those cheap-ass second-cars couldn't be registered in France at all. Not to mention that paying for on-road costs for a second vehicle just so you can "stick it to the man" instead of just getting the fucking bus once every few years is simply not rational self-interest.

    15. Re:Is not going to work! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      mmm, singapore is an island city state so anyone coming and going is going to have to change modes of transport and presumablly go through border control anyway.

      Whereas in most cities you have a more gradual transition from high density city center to lower density suburbs. This means that if you are going to charge people extra for driving in the city centre and/or limit the number of people allowed to drive there you have to draw a somewhat arbitary line as to where "city centre" ends.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  11. NUMBER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *number of vehicles on the road!!

  12. Meh by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    Smog and levels of particulate matter in large cities are generally a lot lower compared to before the 60s, when a lot of people still heated their houses with coal fires. Smoke / Sulphur concentrations in London for example have dropped from around 350 mg / m^3 in 1950 to around 5mg / m^3 today, and levels are still dropping owing to better filters & cleaner cars. Particulate matter in the air hasn't increased; the maximum acceptable levels have been substantially lowered.

    That's a good thing, By the way. Also, Paris seems to have lifted the driving ban for tomorrow, apparently smog is down to acceptable levels already.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      London annual average PM is 14 ug/m3.

  13. Opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like an opportunity for a new business... Instant Carpools... $25 per trip gets you a guy riding along with you who's not actually going anywhere.

  14. The Big Ban by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    The traditional internal combustion powered vehicle will be banned in all industrialized nations one way or another. In the US and Canada this will be difficult due to the great distances some must drive. But what use is a car or truck if it can only be run in rural areas? It is upon us and it must be done. That is why companies such as Tesla are so important are alternative vehicles such as bicycles. Those that think big oil can stop this had best think again.

    1. Re:The Big Ban by xfade551 · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of land use in the Americas is rural, or even wilderness. Then there's this wide spectrum of land use between urban and rural, frequently refered to as "suburbia" or "the suburbs", where public transportation is near non-existant and it may still be 5-15 miles (~8-24 km) to the nearest grocery store.

    2. Re:The Big Ban by NapalmV · · Score: 1

      Well it will be pretty much difficult to do such thing in NA. Try to limit people's access to jobs and watch the lawsuits. What can be done here is to heavily tax companies that don't allow telecommute when possible (something like $25000/year/employee for starters). And heavily tax (to insupportable levels) office space in city downtown.

      As a result, either the businesses that shouldn't be there will move out, or there will be enough money for building and maintaining proper public transit.

      Stop f**g the motorists as they are the symptom not the problem.

    3. Re:The Big Ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The traditional internal combustion powered vehicle will be banned in all industrialized nations one way or another.

      This may happen in 50+ years, but odds are heavily against it happening sooner.

      You, like many idealists, are allowing your emotion-driven enthusiasm for certain ways of doing things to cloud your reasoning.

  15. My 88 Honda CRX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gets better mileage than my wife's 2013 Prius by 8 MPG.

    But nobody can make a car like the CRX, Chevy Metro, or EG-chassis Civic ever again due to safety and emissions requirements.

    The irony --

    A co-worker just purchased a 2014 base-model Camaro. That thing weighs over 5000lbs. to my CRX's 1800 lbs and gets 27 MPG to my CRX's 57 MPG. That thing would fly past US Federal safety and emissions requirements while my CRX would be labeled a "gross polluter" or some such nonsense. There are 600lbs. of airbags alone in that Camaro, but I could drive a motorcycle and not have to worry about any of this?

    I blow off the inspects and continue to drive with my Florida plates.

    Does anyone see a problem with this system? I do.

    1. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by glasshole · · Score: 1

      No Camaro is over 5000lbs, http://www.chevrolet.com/camar... They're all under 4000 for 2014. Even the 500HP monster is finally under 4000 thanks to weight reductions. Don't get me wrong, still way too heavy for a 'sports' car but not 5000 lbs. While I don't disagree that the old CRX gets amazing fuel economy, they certainly do. Fuel economy isn't everything though. The CRX probably puts more pollutants into the air than the heavy Camaro. While that may not effect your pocketbook, it certainly matters to our breathing air if everyone takes the same approach.

    2. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by heezer7 · · Score: 1

      2014 1LS Camaro Base Curb Weight 3719 lbs http://www.chevrolet.com/camar... That's a lot of rounding up. Also MPG != emissions. Not saying a disagree on lighter cars being needed. Just use correct numbers.

    3. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      The CRX probably puts more pollutants into the air than the heavy Camaro.

      At least you thought it was a guess when you said it, and it was an incorrect one. It puts out less pollution, but the pollution is more dense. As it is a smaller engine, it is pumping through less air (specifically nitrogen, the inert gas that makes up most "air) so the specific amount of pollution is diluted less. The Camaro pumps a lot of air, and fuel, so it is less dense. And all our measurements are on pollution density (parts per million) not gross quantity per mile. The fact that the CRX burns half the fuel per mile of the Camaro, means that there is simply half the carbon to work with so there will be less overall pollution per mile, even if it is less "clean" per cubic inch of exhaust.

    4. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Also MPG != emissions.

      Kinda makes a difference in the total amount of pollutants per mile... It is just that we don't measure it that way. We measure pollution per density, not pollution per work.

    5. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by s122604 · · Score: 1

      Your CRX is a dangerous deathtrap, the Prius is not, the NIHS wouldn't even let a company bring it to market.

      It is also far worse in every single pollutant save CO2.
      Also the way MPG is calculated is different now, more strict.
      Also the new Prius is, if you go by the specifications a "midsize". I don't know about that, but I know my 6'2" self can sit in the backseat of one in reasonable comfort. You could not say that for a CRX. Don't get me wrong CO2 is bad, I'm not a climate change denialist, but the other stuff coming out of the tailpipe of 25 year old (and greater) cars is far worse.

      Yes this is a peeve of mine, "why don't we just build cars like we did in the (fill in decade here)?"... No, actually don't want that, even if you think you do...

    6. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRT to safety, etc. -

      I don't see why you and the government bible-thumpers should be making these claims when motorcycles get a 100% pass on any safety, emissions and noise requirements what-so-ever.

      I should be driving a Ninja but not a CRX?

      Explain?????

    7. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple, it's the same ppl. that are ***vehemently*** opposed to MJ but have stock in tobacco and alcohol corporations in their 401K. They are also probably life-long meat-eaters and are obese and suffer from coronary artery disease and diabetes.

      You can't reason with this type of person with this thought process at all.

      You can't ride a motorcycle or skateboard or anything else that may possibly injure you in any way at all. You have to drive a 6000lb Hummer with 1200 lbs of airbags, etc.

      Republican mindset == we will dumb down all cars to save you from your self.

    8. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet some of your best friends aren't climate change denialists...

    9. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      motorcycles get a 100% pass on any safety, emissions and noise requirements what-so-ever.

      I should be driving a Ninja but not a CRX?

      Explain?????

      Motorcycles do in fact need to pass safety inspections in many states in the U.S.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States

      Some states also have noise regulations which apply to motorcycles.

      The reason you want an explanation is because you are too lazy to do a bit of research which
      would quickly clear up your confusion and alleviate the frustration which plagues your tiny little brain.

    10. Re:My 88 Honda CRX by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The fact that the CRX burns half the fuel per mile of the Camaro, means that there is simply half the carbon to work with so there will be less overall pollution per mile

      There will be less CO2 certainly.

      Whether you consider that to imply "less overall pollution" depends on how you score the different gassess in the exhaust.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  16. sao paulo does it by hagnat · · Score: 1

    sao paulo has a similar scheme... but only limits 20% of the cars
    since i don't own a car myself, i dont know the exact mechanics, but on mondays cars with plates ending with 1 or 2 are forbidden, on tuesdays are the ones with 3 or 4, and so on
    people with more money bought a second car, as happened in mexico

    --
    "life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
  17. Not so fast there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hybrids burn gas too and have a carbon footprint. They should be included. Unless it's purely electric it should be included.

    1. Re:Not so fast there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen has no carbon footprint. The energy used to put hydrogen in a usable form may be considered to have a carbon footprint, but if you use that logic, everything has a carbon footprint, and nothing can avoid it. If you use electricity to generate your hydrogen from water, then hydrogen has no more carbon footprint than electric. Yes, I know much is taken from methane and such as it's lower cost, but that's the worst it can be, and even then the by-products are 100% captured. It's carbon neutral at worst, so long as your waste is disposed of properly.

    2. Re:Not so fast there by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Purely electric cars have a footprint too, grid electricity has a footprint, on average, about the same as a 50mpg car -- more or less depending on where in the country you are -- or what country you're in.

    3. Re:Not so fast there by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The energy used to put hydrogen in a usable form may be considered to have a carbon footprint, but if you use that logic, everything has a carbon footprint, and nothing can avoid it.

      Correct! Give the man a cookie.

      If you use electricity to generate your hydrogen from water, then hydrogen has no more carbon footprint than electric.

      Well, actually, you're also having to deal with the conversion factor. Electrolytic production of hydrogen is not very efficient. And then you have to deal with the fact that nobody has got a fuel cell with a lifetime as good as Li-Ions, or as safe as they are, and the fact that the hydrogen storage tank costs can easily run you up into battery cost territory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Not so fast there by sfcat · · Score: 1

      Purely electric cars have a footprint too, grid electricity has a footprint, on average, about the same as a 50mpg car -- more or less depending on where in the country you are -- or what country you're in.

      Bzzzzt....sorry but you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off there. A pure EV can go about 3-4 miles/ kwh. An ICE at 33 kwh per gallon of gas / (40 miles / gallon) is about 0.8 miles / kwh. In addition, electric power generated in a central location is generated about 3x as cleanly. So an EV has about 1/10th the carbon footprint on a millage basis. So that's what, the equivalent of 400 miles to the gallon? Oh, and I forgot about the fact that ICEs waste 90% of their power in inefficiencies against the ideal and an electric motor is usually about 75% efficient. Basically, an EV produces 1/10th the carbon footprint of an ICE based upon mileage. But kept telling people that EVs don't help too much. You are really a credit to the human race.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    5. Re:Not so fast there by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      That's nice, but you've pulled your stats out of your ass.

      Here's one map:
      http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

      Try this one on page 18 that says the same thing:
      http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/d...

      In short, you're completely wrong, you made up your numbers, and you are, at best, uninformed.

  18. Standard in São Paulo - Brazil, for years now by morcego · · Score: 3, Insightful

    São Paulo has had car circulation restrictions based on plate number for years now (more than a decade, too lazy to check exactly when). Mon-Fri, each day a couple different numbers aren't allowed on the streets.

    The streets are still clogged, still polluted as hell. Government says it improved things. I can only imagine what it would be like without this restriction, then.

    --
    morcego
  19. License Plate by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    Were I a Parisian I would have a custom tag comprised of only letters, thus avoiding the even / odd rule. "SMOG" would be a fitting choice. (yeah yeah, I'm sure custom license plates are mainly an American thing)

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:License Plate by godrik · · Score: 1

      they are. You can't get a custom plates in France I think. (Thought, you might be able to get plates from an other european country which might help you here)

    2. Re:License Plate by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      When they do this in areas with custom plates (or plates that can end/start in a letter) they do the 'A-M', 'N-Z' alternating thing, along with odd/even.

    3. Re:License Plate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats -- you get to drive on February 29.

    4. Re:License Plate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but do they have Unicode support? ;)

    5. Re:License Plate by mjwx · · Score: 1

      they are. You can't get a custom plates in France I think. (Thought, you might be able to get plates from an other european country which might help you here)

      You can also get custom plates in Australia and I think England too.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:License Plate by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      You can get personalised plates in the UK (it's a nice little earner for the DVLA) but you can't just choose any combination you want. The plates sold have the same letter/number patterns as regular plates and you are not allowed to use a plate that makes your vehicle look newer than it really is.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  20. Surprising by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's quite radical. I love it! They are not just "founding a committee which might some day gather to speculate about reducing pollution" but instead applying real measures. I'm not sure if this license plate rule is the best way to do it, but it's relatively effective immediately.

    1. Re:Surprising by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Real measures that have been tried and failed before... Sounds like government.

  21. Florance Italy Been Doing this Since mid 90's by rabun_bike · · Score: 1

    This isn't anything new except they now have to do it Paris. Florence (Firenze) Italy was doing this when I was there in 1997. It was pretty interesting because they even had high smog alerts (No Traffic Zones) that required people with certain license plates to actually pull off the road during high alerts on Sundays. This apparently has been expanded to other days of the week. Italy also banned many vehicles from inside the Florence. At the city gate you had to have a special sticker to get in with a car or moped. It was very difficult and expensive to get a sticker for a car.

    http://www.expatsinitaly.com/n...

    1. Re:Florance Italy Been Doing this Since mid 90's by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Having driven in Florance (Firenza) was the fact that you couldn't find your way around! 10 minutes to get into the city center (to a parking lot) and 45 minutes to get back out. It's like a roach motel! At least the three times I've driven there it's always been crowded and sure the government cracks down on who's driving within the city but it's still an overcrowded mess with all the tourists. Yeah, me included in that.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  22. This is normal-ish in Italy by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    they've had alternate plates in Milan since the late 80s. This caused a spate of license plate theft.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  23. Diesels are better? by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

    Europe has far more diesels in passenger car use than is typical in the US, the particulate and Nitrogen Oxides are not nearly as much a problem for gasoline engines as diesel. While diesel gets (typically) better mileage, it comes with other costs.

    1. Re:Diesels are better? by unimacs · · Score: 1

      Older diesel cars are a big part of the problem I guess. Newer ones not so much. There have been previous attempts to ban cars built before 1997 but apparently there was a huge backlash because the ban affected poor people more than the rich. This ban is seen as more fair.

    2. Re:Diesels are better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Europe has far more diesels in passenger car use than is typical in the US, the particulate and Nitrogen Oxides are not nearly as much a problem for gasoline engines as diesel.

      Diesels with catalysts are just as clean as gassers. They produce more NOx but less of every other kind of emissions. We used to think that gassers didn't produce as much soot as diesels, but we found out that the test methodology was flawed and poor at detecting PM2.5s. So as it turns out, gassers produce just as much soot as diesels while making more CO and CO2 but less NOx. Further, diesel fuel is far more biodegradable than gasoline, and the consequences for a spill are less; it's also less volatile than gasoline, so less of it is lost to evaporation — to say nothing of the reduced fire and explosion danger.

      While diesel gets (typically) better mileage, it comes with other costs.

      Yeah, the engines are more expensive to produce, because a diesel without a turbo is a piece of shit that struggles to breathe and because they have expensive injection systems and high compression ratios. Except, whoops! The trend in gasoline engines today is direct injection, and they also have expensive injection systems. And it's also towards smaller engines with turbochargers, just like the diesels. Consequently, the cost disadvantage of diesels is disappearing.

      Modern diesels are better than modern gassers in basically every way, except having to fill up a piss tank in addition to your fuel tank. It's a small price to pay for 10-25% more efficiency in typical vehicles.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Diesels are better? by nblender · · Score: 1

      (I've been driving a diesel truck for about 10 years.)

      The golden age when diesel was cheaper than gasoline is over. Today's average gasoline price is $1.129. Today's average diesel price is $1.369.

      My truck is not a 'modern' diesel. It's a 20 year old Toyota; direct injected, fully mechanical rotary pump, and direct-injected with a turbo. I have it tuned to produce a lot of boost and keep the EGT's down so there is almost no visible smoke unless I'm not careful when I accelerate from a full stop. If I'm careful, you'd never visibly know that it was a diesel.

    4. Re:Diesels are better? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Diesels also have more particulates. You know, the small particles that are more likely to land in your lungs and cause cancer or other diseases.

      When you run gasoline at the same compression ratios as diesel, you get equal efficiency. Then it comes to an issue of the diesel fuel having more energy than gasoline. But that's an artefact of gasoline being "cheaper" to make, as you get more useful products from a barrel of oil if you are making gasoline with it than diesel. So the overall environmental cost is the same for the same compression ratios. And they are getting close. And the gasoline engine will outperform the diesel.

    5. Re:Diesels are better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so you can turn piss into diesel?

    6. Re:Diesels are better? by stox · · Score: 1

      He is referring to the urea tank used to clean the emissions.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    7. Re:Diesels are better? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Where do you live that gas is only $1.129???

    8. Re:Diesels are better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The golden age when diesel was cheaper than gasoline is over. Today's average gasoline price is $1.129. Today's average diesel price is $1.369.

      My 1992 F250 7.3 with a turbo kit gets around twice the mileage of a 1992 F250 with the 7.5 gas motor when doing work, which is all I use it for. Factor that in.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Diesels are better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Diesels also have more particulates. You know, the small particles that are more likely to land in your lungs and cause cancer or other diseases.

      No, and also no. That's what I just got done talking about, and we've discussed it here on slashdot before. Please try to keep ahead of the EPA's propaganda talking points.

      Then it comes to an issue of the diesel fuel having more energy than gasoline. But that's an artefact of gasoline being "cheaper" to make, as you get more useful products from a barrel of oil if you are making gasoline with it than diesel.

      And yet "green diesel" or biodiesel is cheaper still, requires releasing no sequestered carbon, and can be made from algae grown on saltwater.

      And the gasoline engine will outperform the diesel.

      It takes less energy input to make diesel, the diesel gets better mileage, and it costs about the same to produce both a diesel and a direct-injected gasoline motor. The diesel produces more torque while the gasser produces more horsepower. A TDI golf will blow the doors off a gasser with the same-displacement gasoline engine, it just walks away from it. And today you can get a diesel from Subaru that isn't even heavy, because the opposed cylinder design cancels out the vibration that plagues typical diesels. There's really nothing to what you say.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Diesels are better? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It takes less energy input to make diesel,

      Because it takes a larger percent of a barrel of oil, meaning you need to pump more oil for Diesel. It's easier to make because it's closer to pure crude. When you take the same barrel and make gasoline, you also get plastics and other things in greater amounts than diesel. So Diesel is worse for the environment.

      A TDI golf will blow the doors off a gasser with the same-displacement gasoline engine, it just walks away from it.

      Are you comparing similarly sized turbo engines? I've seen a TDI Golf sized engine push an AWD Turbo Talon to a 10s 1/4 mi. And yes, the guy drove 200 + miles to the track to run it, and 200+ miles home after. Just changed tires to run it.

    11. Re:Diesels are better? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Likely in Canada, and the price quoted is per liter.

    12. Re:Diesels are better? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Diesel is not cheaper than gas per gallon, but it's still cheaper per mile driven. I routinely get 30-33 MPG in the city from my Jetta wagon, and 42-44 on the highway.

    13. Re:Diesels are better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A TDI golf will blow the doors off a gasser with the same-displacement gasoline engine, it just walks away from it.

      Are you comparing similarly sized turbo engines?

      Nope. But then you get into the fuel consumption issue again. Diesels run lean all the time by design so when you drive them hard they still do pretty well. Gassers can't do that or you'll burn them up, so they run lean half the time and rich half the time (literally!) and when you drive the piss out of them you can wave byebye to your fuel.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Diesels are better? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the lean-all-the-time is what drives the particulate generation. And gassers can do it, but only if you use "tricks" like direct injection in a gasoline engine. You are just a fuel bigot. The math and science don't make it as clear as you assert.

    15. Re:Diesels are better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the lean-all-the-time is what drives the particulate generation.

      No, no it isn't. The gassers produce more soot than was previously believed. Again, try to keep up.

      And gassers can do it, but only if you use "tricks" like direct injection in a gasoline engine. You are just a fuel bigot.

      Uh, how is direct injection of gasoline a "trick"? I call it modern technology. You are the fuel bigot.

      The math and science don't make it as clear as you assert.

      Yes, yes they do. And gassers produce twice as much soot as you think, which is why you're wrong and your ideas are stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Diesels are better? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      On the other hand petrol cars haven't stood still, either. I inherited a recent model Honda Civic recently, and on my commute journeys I'm getting 48.2 MPG (imperial), which translates to 38.5 MPG (US). I don't know what it does on long highway type journeys because I live on a fairly small island (only about 30 miles long) and we don't have roads of that type.

    17. Re:Diesels are better? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, no it isn't. The gassers produce more soot than was previously believed. Again, try to keep up.

      More than previously believed, but still well below the coal-fired Diesels.

    18. Re:Diesels are better? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      And yet "green diesel" or biodiesel is cheaper still, requires releasing no sequestered carbon, and can be made from algae grown on saltwater.

      And unicorns.
      Go launch your algae farms and become a trillionnaire, please.
      Made with refurbished parts transported by bicycle, ox cart and wooden sail ship. With algae that feed themselves out of thin air.

  24. My perception - by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 1

    My perception in having visited Paris, Barcelona, Milan, Grenoble, Firenze is that a fair amount of the road pollution comes not from cars but from Vespas and similar scooters and small-engine motorcycles. Lots of people living within these cities rely on such vehicles, and just judging from my nose, they are big contributors to smog. I realize that it's often the most economical means of getting around for students and other younger people. Also for cities that were laid out before the internal combustion engine was invented, the convenience of a Vespa is hard to overstate. But there seems to be not much interest in engineering them to be very clean.

    1. Re:My perception - by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      My perception in having visited Paris, Barcelona, Milan, Grenoble, Firenze is that a fair amount of the road pollution comes not from cars but from Vespas and similar scooters and small-engine motorcycles. Lots of people living within these cities rely on such vehicles, and just judging from my nose, they are big contributors to smog.

      I'm not sure about this, but I think those vehicles burn oil by design as part of their operation. The lubricating oil is mixed with the gasoline before it enters the piston.

    2. Re:My perception - by bob_super · · Score: 1

      Scooters and small motorcycles have been moving to 4-strokes for while now. There used to be pre-mix stations for 2-stroke mopeds when I was a kid, i can't say I have seen one in the last two decades.
      People don't like having to mix their oil, the remaining two-strokes are a dying breed.

    3. Re:My perception - by mikael · · Score: 1

      I've seen that too - you should have seen traffic at the freeway between Singapore and Malaysia - on each side there's a toll booth with one side for mopeds and motorbikes, and another side for cars. Since all the cars had catalytic converters, the air was clean. On the side with the mopeds, a thick bluish-gray smog obscured visibilty for hundreds of meters.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:My perception - by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You don't have to mix oil with a 2 stroke that's remotely modern. I have a Y2K Cagiva Mito (125cc sports motorcycle, 2 stroke) and it injects the oil from a resevoir. A tank full of oil lasts several thousand km.

  25. Cars by JustOK · · Score: 1

    Cars should have warning labels on them like cigarette packs.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  26. Think you miss the point by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You built your cities so that biking, walking or taking the train isn't an option. That's that difference.

    But read again what he is saying. That despite the fact that yes, european cities are often built to be more friendly to bikes/walking/mass transit, they still have a LOT of cars. So how much did it really help to design a city to facilitate this when they still have vast pollution issues from cars?

    In a small counterpoint, I'm not sure Paris is really a city that embraces bikes to the same extent places like Amsterdam or Copenhagen do... and I think you are making an overly blanket statement about U.S. cities, I don't know if you know but there are quite a few large U.S. cities where you can get around very well via mass transit or bike. I found it nearly as easy to bike around San Francisco (even with the hills!) as in Amsterdam.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lot of cars, maybe... lots of American's V6/V8 trucks... surely not!

    2. Re:Think you miss the point by Zibodiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I've admittedly never been to New York, all of my colleagues from NYC purchased cars after they moved away. The city streets are almost exclusively used by taxis and public transportation. Most people apparently use the subway to get around.
      NYC is the largest city on our continent, and also one of the oldest. Infrastructure design isn't the reason for most Americans using cars. It's the fact that most of our cities have very separate housing and business districts, and there's no practical way to transport everyone 30+ miles each way every day to work, especially when the residential areas are evenly distributed in a circle around the business districts. If there were a functioning light rail/bus/subway system, it would take an additional hour or so of your day to use it, since there would have to be several interchanges to make it reasonable. NYC is the exception to this, since it was built before fast transportation existed, and hence the residential areas were mingled with the business districts.

    3. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pollution and grid lock would be even worse if more people were driving.
      It's like saying that just because some people still die despite airbags, no car should have them.
      Besides that there is the issue of parking to think about.
      Can you even imagine how much parking space would be imagined if everyone had to drive a car here?
      In the US there are huge parking lots,

    4. Re:Think you miss the point by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      I think it's cigarettes. The French do love their cigarettes.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:Think you miss the point by mikael · · Score: 1

      In Napoleonic times, Paris widened the streets and created these wide boulevards in order to stop rioters from blocking off the streets whenever taxes went up. That also helped the flow off horse-drawn traffic in those days. But it also meant the republic could send down troops rapidly whenever there was trouble. Then the car came along to replace the horse-drawn carriages.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Think you miss the point by alen · · Score: 0

      all the europeans say that they all live in the cities and only the poor peons live in the burbs in europe

    7. Re:Think you miss the point by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So how much did it really help to design a city to facilitate this when they still have vast pollution issues from cars?

      Can you say the old cities of Europe were designed to facilitate biking? Nor were they designed for cars, as cities like Los Angeles were. Most of them weren't "designed" for anything but the glory of the monarchy.

      If people are biking in Europe, it's most likely despite the city's design, not because of it.

      Here in the US, we had cities that were so choked with smog that it caused respiratory ailments. It took the EPA a couple of decades to fix that, much in the same way they cleaned up the Great Lakes. I'm not sure one fix like "odd/even license plate days" are going to fix Europe's problems quickly.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Think you miss the point by godrik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let me way-in on that.

      I grew up in Paris and the problem there is that the city is way too big for its own good. Every single mode of transportation is overcrowded: the subway, the trains, the streets, the circular belt ("peripherique"), the buses, the pedestrian/biking ways, the tramways.

      This overcrowding comes from decades of political will to centralize everything in the country in Paris. The city was never designed to take that kind of traffic. The last major redesign of the city was by haussmann at the end of the 19th century. Since then, only minor adjustment has been make: subways, tramways, "les quais", circular belt. But they all contribute to bring more people in.

      The only solution for Paris (and for French efficiency) is to push people, administration, businesses into other cities.

    9. Re:Think you miss the point by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure Amsterdam and San Francisco are representative cities for either the US or Europe.
      It's like saying : "Take 2 average girls, say, Natalie Portman and Kate Middleton"

    10. Re:Think you miss the point by dirk · · Score: 1

      The big difference is because of how the cities were designed, this is even an option. In most American cities, there is simply no way you could ever even consider doing this because there is very limited public transportation. That is where the design comes in handy. I live in Cincinnati, OH. If you banned half the cars from the city, that would mean half the people couldn't come to work because the only thing we have is a crappy bus system that only takes people to the downtown area. It just isn't possible to even consider this because of how American cities were designed to specifically handle cars and not other traffic.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    11. Re:Think you miss the point by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      While I've admittedly never been to New York, all of my colleagues from NYC purchased cars after they moved away. The city streets are almost exclusively used by taxis and public transportation. Most people apparently use the subway to get around.

      To add to this, my sister, upon moving to NYC, sold her car after a month. 2 years down the line, not having a car is still not an issue for her.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Think you miss the point by TWX · · Score: 2

      You would be surprised by the number of Jeep products running around Paris. The Cherokee-of-old, the Grand Cherokee, and the Liberty (sold as the Cherokee there) are very, very popular, and the Chrysler PT Cruiser is popular as well, which only gets around 20mpg. There are also lots of Chrysler minivans and more than a few 300s.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    13. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European cities weren't designed for biking because they were being green, but because cars didn't exist yet. Also unlike the US, real estate is a scare resource and not as conducive to urban sprawl.

    14. Re:Think you miss the point by operagost · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... naked and petrified?

      Pouring hot grits down pants now...

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Napoleonic times, Paris widened the streets and created these wide boulevards in order to stop rioters from blocking off the streets whenever taxes went up. That also helped the flow off horse-drawn traffic in those days. But it also meant the republic could send down troops rapidly whenever there was trouble. Then the car came along to replace the horse-drawn carriages.

      Baron Haussman modernised Paris like nobody else. We should be grateful to him.
      The old Paris was a slum city. Ha cleared it all away (painful yes for those concerned, but in the long term he did a beautiful job).

    16. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      NYC is not the largest city on the continent, Mexico City is bigger.

    17. Re:Think you miss the point by jfengel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's more about the use than the age. After all, NYC isn't any older than Boston, but it has a very different development history.

      NYC is an island: when people say "NYC" they mean "Manhattan". It was a manufacturing hub all through the 19th century, having access to both materials and markets through its ports. There were bridges, but they could only carry so many people per day, and labor tended to concentrate on the island itself.

      Further, it was a major port of entry for foreign arrivals, many of whom found homes in the Manhattan slums, which had very high density. They proceeded to work for those factories, most famously as sweatshops.

      That concentration became self-affirming: the wealth and need for capital made it a financial center in the 20th century, and the limited land made it build up instead of out. It did develop suburbs in Brooklyn and Queens and Staten Island, and they look a lot like suburbs elsewhere, but they're not what people think of when they say "New York City".

      Boston was also based around its harbor, but its geography meant that the manufacturing moved out of the city proper. They built up famous manufacturing suburbs like Lowell, where the land was cheaper. The city is more spread out; it's more akin to European cities than most in America but it still doesn't have the intensive concentration of NYC.

      NYC still spread out fast enough that it needed a public transportation system, and farsighted city planners built it one of the best subways in the world. These helped connect what became (in later decades) the skyscraper boom. That makes NYC very different from European cities, which were designed around walkability between relatively low buildings from centuries past.

      Er... hadn't meant to launch into a dissertation. Thanks for reading this far...

    18. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but... Mexico.

    19. Re:Think you miss the point by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I loved riding around Frisco when I was stationed in the area for a year. Rode over the Golden Gate bridge a couple times, rode up to Napa a few times too. I even rode down Lombard Street once. (Riding up the back side of that hill was murder.) Great city for bicycles.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    20. Re:Think you miss the point by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing the kids.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    21. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infrastructure design isn't the reason for most Americans using cars. It's the fact that most of our cities have very separate housing and business districts, and there's no practical way to transport everyone 30+ miles each way every day to work, especially when the residential areas are evenly distributed in a circle around the business districts.

      American cities were designed specifically to require cars to do anything, with no small part owed to the automobile manufacturers themselves. It wasn't just happenstance that you need a car in most of the USA.

    22. Re:Think you miss the point by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Infrastructure design isn't the reason for most Americans using cars. It's the fact that most of our cities have very separate housing and business districts, and there's no practical way to transport everyone 30+ miles each way every day to work, especially when the residential areas are evenly distributed in a circle around the business districts.

      American cities were designed specifically to require cars to do anything, with no small part owed to the automobile manufacturers themselves. It wasn't just happenstance that you need a car in most of the USA.

      Older cities, such as NYC, Boston, etc. were designed for horse and carriage. It's why the older streets are so narrow with very little room for bike lanes.

      Newer cities, such as Orlando, LA, etc. and suburbs around older cities were designed for cars.

    23. Re:Think you miss the point by afidel · · Score: 1

      Also unlike the US, real estate is a scare resource and not as conducive to urban sprawl.

      This is pure B.S., Île-de-France has the same population density as Cuyahoga County (~1,000/km^2) but yet Cleveland is often cited as an example of suburban sprawl run amok.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    24. Re:Think you miss the point by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Six million people commute to and from Manhattan island every week day, mainly by taxi and subway, moving that many people is impressive by anyone's standards. The bicycle stand at the Amsterdam train station is also impressive in its scale.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:Think you miss the point by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, very interesting read!

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    26. Re:Think you miss the point by BurfCurse · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't compare many US cities to San Francisco. It's a terrific place to ride a bike. But cities like that in the US are far and few in-between.

    27. Re:Think you miss the point by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      This is pure B.S., ÃZle-de-France has the same population density as Cuyahoga County (~1,000/km^2) but yet Cleveland is often cited as an example of suburban sprawl run amok.

      The reason Cleveland is cited as an example of suburban sprawl run amok is that the growth happened very rapidly, with very little attempt to create comprehensive public and rapid transit. Paris grew to its size over a much longer time.

      And it's not just a matter of size and density, but of how well the services are distributed. You can live in parts of Cuyahoga County where you can't get groceries without a car. You can't get to a drug store without a car. There's no place to work within less than a half-hour's drive.

      There are few places in and around Paris where you can't find what you need, either walking or a short bike ride away.

      The bad news is that the Wal-Mart-ification of America is causing a similar problem all over small towns in America. There's no little store on the corner any more because Wal-Mart has put them out of business. But Wal-Mart's business model depends on everybody having a car and being able to drive ten miles or more. You hit $8 gasoline in the US and Wal-Mart's business model might not look so good. That's called an "externality". Wal-Mart can charge less because they don't have to bring products to you, they make you come to the products.

      Me, I can't live anywhere if I can't take a short stroll somewhere to get a bite to eat or a bag of groceries. Walk to work if necessary. I've been lucky in that regard because it's worked out for me. Most people in America are not so lucky.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      French efficiency

      You wish, dude.

    29. Re:Think you miss the point by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You would be surprised by the number of Jeep products running around Paris. The Cherokee-of-old, the Grand Cherokee, and the Liberty (sold as the Cherokee there) are very, very popular, and the Chrysler PT Cruiser is popular as well, which only gets around 20mpg. There are also lots of Chrysler minivans and more than a few 300s.

      Mein Gott in Himmel.

      And France is supposed to be one of the fashion capital of the world... I'll just have to take that title right off you.

      After naming a Renault F series turbo engine the F4RT you think the French would have learned.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    30. Re:Think you miss the point by bibendum59 · · Score: 1

      Your numbers seem a bit high. This source reports the average commute is about half that distance. http://www.statisticbrain.com/... If the average commute commute really is 30+ miles each way then it is time to move.

    31. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My company has 10 person IT departments in the heart of downtown in LA, Houston, NYC, Chicago, DC, and SF

      The only offices that anyone regularly drives to and from work is LA and Houston. DC has a pretty weak public transportation system outside of the beltway but it's still far better choice than waiting in traffic.

    32. Re:Think you miss the point by Zibodiz · · Score: 1

      This is of course purely anecdotal, but from my personal experience, this is pretty average in the city. The exception would be the rural towns too small to support public transportation, and those who live in the intra-city areas, and often, they are the ones who already use public transport. Every city is different, though, and I have only lived and worked in the Western half of the United States (Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and Washington), so other areas may vary substantially.

    33. Re:Think you miss the point by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Good points on mixed use. I work in Toronto and commute about 1.5 hours each way (Toronto apparently beat LA recently for worst commute time). I train/bus/walk it but with one bedroom condos going for 3-500k versus 2000sqft houses on 50' lots in the burbs it just doesn't make a lot of sense to live in the city (unless you desperately want the urban life which I don't: you can't realistically afford to raise a family in the city unless both parents are working professionals). NYC might also have been forced to be more reasonable because of its island nature. If you were stuck taking a fairy and then hiring a horse every day to get to work you'd quickly learn that if you stay on the island things get much simpler. Sadly Toronto has a lot of land around it so the "Greater Toronto Area" spans an area about 70km (45mi) in all directions outside of the borders of the city proper and silly immigration policies that allow ~40% of immigrants (not to single them out just for being immigrants but for being the source of population growth in Canada) to all move to this one city creating an endless pushing out of suburbs further and further away.

      I'm not sure of a good solution to the problem. A random idea: charge people/corporations a fee per commuter mile. It would either force suburbanites to move closer to work/change jobs or push employers to move to less densely populated areas where mixed use is more prevalent, or even better which I'd like: make companies have to consider if having people commute into work to do a job they could easily do from home makes sense. I saw a Ted talk last year that claimed that cities were actually more environmental though because people generally do get around on public transit/walking more, live in smaller spaces etc. I'm not sure that it took into account that say roughly 30% of a cities population had to drive into it in the morning from much further away. Perhaps if the typical city was mixed use you would loose a lot of the efficiencies as you'd have a larger proportion of families requiring larger living spaces/schools/parks.

      NYC isn't the biggest in North America though: that honor goes to Mexico city (both urban and metro areas are larger (about 200k and 2M difference respectively), then NYC, LA, Toronto.

    34. Re:Think you miss the point by sjames · · Score: 1

      For one, they can actually ban cars on an odd/even basis for an emergency without shutting the city down.

    35. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to drive 7.5 miles to get to the closest commercial business which is a 7-11 convenience store, I hit one stop sign to get there. Now 10 miles out total in two different directions and I am balls deep in malls, stores, home depots, and every chain restaurant in business. I work 30 miles from my house. The first 10 miles takes me about 10 minutes, the last 20 takes over an hour.

    36. Re:Think you miss the point by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      As long as she is content to not leave the city much.

    37. Re:Think you miss the point by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Then explain why Boston, Washington DC, Richmond, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Atlanta aren't similar. They were all built at the same time NYC was. NYC uniqueness doesn't come from age. It comes from the fact it sits on Islands (Manhattan and Long if you are confused.) Atlanta is a prefect example of why your argument fails.

    38. Re:Think you miss the point by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Not in sq miles and no the slums don't count nor the metro area.

    39. Re:Think you miss the point by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Weigh in".

    40. Re:Think you miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      and no the slums don't count

      That rules out most of New York then. That place is a fucking shit hole.

    41. Re:Think you miss the point by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      not really, in UK the rich (or well off) live in the burbs because they want a house with a garden and don't want the polluted air and they can afford to commute into the city, the mega-rich live (or have a 2nd/3rd house/apartment) in the city, the poor live in all the poorest parts of the cities/towns

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    42. Re:Think you miss the point by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      As long as she is content to not leave the city much.

      Planes, trains, and public transit.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    43. Re:Think you miss the point by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      The bicycle stand at the Amsterdam train station is also impressive in its scale.

      Haha this, and in my limited experiance, copenhagen.

    44. Re:Think you miss the point by godrik · · Score: 1

      So that's how it is spelled! Thanks!

    45. Re:Think you miss the point by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Bicyclesion are relatively recent, they're products of the 2nd industrial revolution which gave us cars as well.
      So I would say european cities were designed for walking and animal transportation ; that they are good for biking is an accident. There's plenty surbubia too, which ate villages and farm land around the cities.

  27. Particularly, all white Fiat Unos by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Very dangerous around people fleeing paparazzi.

  28. Don't forget visibility by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    But nobody can make a car like the CRX, Chevy Metro, or EG-chassis Civic ever again due to safety and emissions requirements.

    Don't forget also that your CRX has vastly better visibility due to safety requirements making all new vehicles mandate A and C pillars that can hold up a small steam locomotive on the roof of your car.

    My wife can hardly drive any vehicle newer than about five years old now because she can't see out of any of them while driving.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Don't forget visibility by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Ugh, took a look at what you meant with those pillars and that's god awful.

      Guess when we have enough moronic SUV drivers in my country we have the same thing to look forward to :/ One more reason to hate them.

    2. Re:Don't forget visibility by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Also don't forget the absurdly high belt lines thanks to the side-impact requirements. Sitting in a new car is like being in a cave. It's no wonder they are talking about mandating back-up cameras, because without one you're pretty much backing up blind. I much prefer something I can see out of, as the safest car is the one that doesn't get into the accident in the first place.

    3. Re:Don't forget visibility by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      > My wife can hardly drive any vehicle newer than about five years old now because she can't see out of any of them while driving.

      I was wondering if this was a thing or if for some reason my massively beastly 6'2" build was putting me 6 standard deviations outside of normal that cars were designed for.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  29. Delivery Vehicles? by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    What about delivery vehicles? They normally have one driver so they don't get the three people exemption. Guess you won't be getting your food.

  30. How does the carpooling thing work? by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1

    It's one thing to need 3+ people in a car to use the HOV lane, but how does this promote carpooling if you make ALL the roads in town illegal with 1-2 people in the car? The first guy can't go pick the other up, and at the end of the day if you're down to two passengers, you can't drop either of them off.

    1. Re:How does the carpooling thing work? by Shados · · Score: 1

      The goal is to ban them, with some exceptions, not to allow them, with some exceptions.

      If you have a big family, or if people can take the subway to your place and you're all going to the same mall, it works. Otherwise, tough.

    2. Re:How does the carpooling thing work? by godrik · · Score: 2

      Most people that drive in paris do not live in paris. They typically live in the suburbs (which are different towns) and drive to paris.

  31. OLD NEWS by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is already done in Mexico City. The net result has been to INCREASE pollution. While air quality in the city did not change at all, residents simply kept their old car when they bought another one. Now they had 2 cars and could drive every day of the week because they had different plates. As a result they kept older cars that might have been salvaged running longer, producing more pollutants over the long run and also forcing the poor that could only afford one car to be the only group in compliance with the spirit of the law. Car purchases in Mexico city sky rocketed while new car production remained stagnant, meaning people were buying older used cars. Basically this law caused Mexico city to suck in every 20 year old jalopy from every neighboring city and town just so residents could get to work on time.

    There have been many studies done on this. Here's just the first that popped up in Google.
    Citation:
    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~in...

     

    1. Re:OLD NEWS by bob_super · · Score: 1

      See my comment far above about the cost of keeping an old car legal...

    2. Re:OLD NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see his comment on how it is primarily the poor who pay for laws that amount to social engineering.

    3. Re:OLD NEWS by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Depends upon the license plate system Paris uses.

      For me, I get new plates every 6 years and they are tied to the car; while a next door state ties the car plates to the person and not to the car. So having an extra car wouldn't work around the problem for me reliably because there would be a 50/50 chance that both cars would be assigned similar plates when they expired; or in that other state all my cars would always have the same plates (in which case a spouse or car pool buddy would be the work around.)

      The obvious solution to such laws is when loopholes are discovered to be a problem to immediately repair the system instead of allow it to continue like Mexico City did.

    4. Re:OLD NEWS by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. You can't control peoples natural instinct to do what they will unless you convince them it's wrong. In many southern states there are still dry counties where alcohol is nearly illegal and there are no liqueur stores. Those counties have some of the highest rates of drunk driving in the country because people end up having to drive an hour to get beer, or if they want to get home cabs aren't an option. You have to take the long view when creating legislation. Just because it sounds like a good idea doesn't mean the effect will be anything like what you intend.

      The problem with cities like Paris is they've centralized taxation into some metropolitan areas. They concentrate wealth at the city center and then tax the hell out of it. Then they have to deal with the congestion problem as tens of thousands of people try to commute at the same time to the same place. If they really wanted to ease pollution the best solution would be to stop growing at the center and start spreading growth all over the city at a slower rate. In my particular city they were running out parking in the downtown area so they wanted to build an $8 billion train that ran for only 30 miles to truck people in and out. If they'd just bought out one of the older high-rises and had those businesses move a mile in any direction they'd have saved over 7 of those 8 billion dollars and fixed the congestion problem in 6 months rather than 10 years.

    5. Re:OLD NEWS by Alomex · · Score: 1

      This happened initially, but then the government exempted new more efficient cars from the banning-days regulation and every one switched to newer cleaner cars.

      Pollution went down measurably and hasn't really been a problem since.

    6. Re:OLD NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fact that the people of Mexico City have done as the GP described. I'm sure what you say is perfectly accurate, but it doesn't change what has actually happened.

  32. Re:Its silly by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those don't cause smog in your own city, and transport represents over a quarter of all energy usage, so gotta call BS on the general "Drop in the bucket" principle you're pushing as well.

    It's only true if you're ignoring both the context, and giving a lot of wiggle room for the phrase "drop in the bucket".

  33. A better plan... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    ...would be to internalize the full cost of burning fuel into the price of the fuel, then use that revenue to pay the external cost of burning fuel. Then people would drive less and the people who get respiratory illnesses would have their health care and lost work days paid for. (In single-payer countries, the revenue to the government should be offset by lower tax rates.)

    This is a better plan if you believe that a market-based solution to the economic problem is better than rationing, and if you believe that markets are most efficient when their failures are corrected.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  34. Re:Its silly by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 2

    Even if true, which I doubt, it's irrelevant. Paris can only control their environment, not the industrial policies of another country. Like it or not, they're doing what they can do.

  35. Re:Its silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The combined pollution of all the cars on the road in the entire country of France is a tiny drop in the bucket of pollution caused by industrial waste, mostly from poor countries struggling to get a foothold in the global economy.

    They are plugging a leak in the wall while ignoring the torrent pouring out of the wide open window right next to it.

    Talking about silly, you didn't read any of the article in question did you? They are addressing a local smog problem. Please elaborate on how limiting local pollution in the city of Paris is an ineffective way of reducing the local smog problem in the city of Paris?

  36. How can this work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are people who live in paris exempt?
    Or do they just get the day off on they day their car isn't allowed on the road?
    What happens if you need to get somewhere in an emergency?
    They should just make sections of the city car free. That makes much more sense and is enforceable.

  37. Re:Its silly by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

    Which of the "poor countries" right next door to France are causing all the smog in Paris? This is specifically to reduce extreme air pollution in the city that has been peaking quite high recently.

    They are not trying to solve all pollution with this measure, nor is it permanent.

  38. environmental standards of 50 years ago by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    Smog and levels of particulate matter in large cities are generally a lot lower compared to before the 60s, when a lot of people still heated their houses with coal fires.

    Surprisingly, standards for environmental conditions have improved in the last 50 years, particularly given the voluminous amount of evidence on how pollution negatively impacts public health, infrastructure, and nature.

  39. doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For many people in the banlieu coming to work to Paris by ar, a second car is an expanse. Plus you cannot chose your number on the plate, so what if you get a second odd or a second even ? You are screwed. But even if people bought old cars, they will have to respect emission or get huge expanse to bring them up to spec. In the mean time the economy profit (cars bought) and some people will instead chose bike or bus or metro. So pollution lowers too.

  40. Re:Its silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The leading cause of smog in Paris is people smoking cigarettes.

  41. source? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Mexico City tried this...

    lol wut? +5 Interesting as if its just *common knowledge* that Mexico City tried this & found that too many people bought other cars...like we talk about that on /. all the time...WTF...

    you need to present some kind of evidence...and mods need to fix the score

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  42. only one day by bill38 · · Score: 2

    It's only enforced today (Monday March 17). For tomorrow (Tuesday 18th) it's already cancelled. They forecast less pollution. Also the public transports won't be free any more on Tuesday.

  43. Re:Its silly by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

    The bucket holds four drops.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  44. Climate a factor too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Infrastructure is not the only reason people don't bike to work in a lot of cities. Local weather plays a big part. I've lived in both Honolulu and Key West, and in both cities biking to work was a pleasure on most days. I've also lived in Kodiak Alaska. While biking there wasn't anymore difficult, it sucked doing it in freezing rain everyday. A city can build all the bike lanes they want, but in a lot of cities in the U.S. they won't be used simply because of the particular climate is not conducive to biking.

  45. Half? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The front half or the back half?

  46. Re:Its silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All those "drops" add up to a large amount.

    There isn't just one cause, and to be effective, everything has to be addressed and it's pollution reduced. But we have to start somewhere and someone has to be the spark to get it moving in that direction.

    You don't even need a car in Paris though. The metro and Velolib work just fine, if not better than driving.

  47. need a plan to deal with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The French need a plan to deal with it. First they need to id the low hanging fruits and deal with it, Then they need a long term plan to get rid of all source of pollution starting with the worse and working done the list. My suggestion is to get rid of the oldest most polluting cars first. Use tax rebate. Buy them. Just get rid of them. Check large scale space heating or industrial use of fossil fuel. Check the power plants. If any one is still burning coal stop it. If they are burning oil then try and get them retrofitted to also burn gas.

  48. Amsterdam & Copenhagen re-designed for bikes by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Can you say the old cities of Europe were designed to facilitate biking?

    They are generally, at least to the extent that narrow streets are hell for cars and make biking more practical (or at least less nerve wracking) than driving.

    From direct experience, Amsterdam and Copenhagen are cities that while not explicitly having an original design for bikes, were certainly re-designed around bikes - which means loads of very dedicated biking lanes everywhere, including bike-specific traffic signals (which is a real sign that you have entered the big leagues of designing around bikes). That's also not just a "bike lane" where a bike can be, but directionally specific bike lanes on each side of large streets.

    But that doesn't mean they don't have cars, there are a LOT of cars driving around Amsterdam also. And there are so many bikes that at rush hour both bike and car lanes are horribly crowded.

    Here in the US, we had cities that were so choked with smog that it caused respiratory ailments.

    Yes, I remember how it was... emission controls helped that quite a lot. I would agree with someone else's post that Europe's reliance on lots more diesel cars is probably a big impediment to really improving the situation.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  49. Re:Its silly by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    A man goes to doctor, doctor says he has a blocked artery, he needs a bypass surgery. The doctor also says the man needs to give up cheeseburgers and cigarettes. The man says "Bullshit, it's the block in my veins that is killing me, not my diet or smoking!"

    You're right that developing countries may be contributing more to pollution in the future, but you're wrong in taking that to mean that developed countries shouldn't bother taking annoying steps to solve the problem.

    Unfortunately, both the patient in my story and developed nations will totally ignore that and will continue being irresponsible.

  50. Re:Its silly by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

    No, it's a serious problem, particularly in Paris because 60% of the cars there run on diesel.

    http://www.theatlanticcities.c...

    Although diesel is much more efficient, it creates serious local pollution, smog and minute particles that cause real harm.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  51. Re:Its silly by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

    Paris can only control their environment, not the industrial policies of another country. Like it or not, they're doing what they can do.

    They can make a stink about it in the EU, probably file a lawsuit somewhere.
    You don't have to put up with pollution from your neighbor and neither does an entire country.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  52. NYC by Brannon · · Score: 4, Informative

    My experience is that people who live outside of NYC think that NYC == "Manhattan" while people who live inside NYC think that NYC == {Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Staten Island, Queens}. The latter is the official definition, but apart from that all the boroughs are strongly connected by subway (or ferry/subway in the case of Staten Island), sNYC taxis & busses, NYC income tax, NYC schools, a single mayor and government, and a number of cultural factors (walking culture, bodegas, etc.).

    Which isn't to say that we're all one big happy family--people have strong allegiances to their borough, but I think most people in NYC feel like we are one city.

    1. Re:NYC by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 0

      Manhattan is coterminous with New York County.

    2. Re:NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got just one question.

      Where Brooklyn at.

  53. Must've been playing Simcity by compro01 · · Score: 1

    Expect some complaints from the Below-Average Bowlers League over this.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  54. There are good days and bad days by Brannon · · Score: 1

    and it is certainly worse in some parts of the city than others. Midtown is traditionally pretty bad and that's where tourists spend a lot of their time.

    BTW: if you came in the summer you might have mistaken the smell of smog with that of hot garbage. You get used to it.

  55. Re:Its silly by tindur · · Score: 1

    That used to be true but modern diesel cars have particle filters. Today petrol cars emit more fine particles than diesel ones.

  56. Re:Its silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much as I hate the whole "i'm not doing anything til the next guy does something", I hate the whole "as long as I'm doing SOMETHING, I'm saving the planet" even more.

  57. I guess idocy reigns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess someone forgot about the carbon foot print of the electric power plants and the transmission loss to charge the cars. Populist thinking is often not the solution.

  58. Nothing Will Ever Change, All Ideas are Stupid exc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a server admin. I know everything!

  59. Re:Amsterdam & Copenhagen re-designed for bike by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    Diesel cars are not the problem in the EU, the fuel sold in the EU for diesel cars is cleaner than the stuff sold in the US for trucks (less sulphur content). The EU/US emission standards are almost identical and were implemented at basically the same time. Geography make some cities worse than others, an inversion layer over any city will choke it after a few days. Some cities such as LA are particularly prone to inversion layers, others such as Chicago are known for their prevailing winds and don't suffer so much from undispersed smog.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  60. fobeta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes me too fobeta

  61. Re:Its silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That used to be true but modern diesel cars have particle filters. Today petrol cars emit more fine particles than diesel ones.

    That used to be true but modern petrol cars have particle filters ...

  62. Too many people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the CAUSE of the problem. Too many people. We can all have cars, and drive them as much as we want, if we reduce the population by 70% to 80%. You should read up what 'dysgenics' is.

  63. That's Cute! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just two days? That's cute! I live in Tehran and this particular kind of ban (even/odd) has been in effect for several years now in a large part of it.

    To clarify, weekdays in Farsi are numbered, starting from 0 to 5 (Saturday through Thursday,) and then Friday which is the weekend. So, in the downtown Tehran, movement of any vehicle that the last digit of its license plate number divided by two doesn't match the number of the weekday divided by two is prohibited. In other (and simpler words,) odd plates can go there only on odd days of the week, and even numbers only on even days. This ban is only in effect from 7AM to 7PM. It is also lifted during weekends and holidays and such. And while there are exceptions for all public transport and service vehicles, there is no such rule for cars with any number of passengers.

    There is another, smaller area in the middle of this "traffic ban zone", that no private car is allowed to go. Of course, you can pay a rather hefty daily/monthly/yearly license fee and obtain a badge that allows you to enter these zones, but I believe their total number is regulated and in some cases you have to prove that you live or work there, or something like that. (I'm not quite sure.)

    These rules are implemented however, to mitigate traffic, not pollution. Tehran has (I believe) what is among the most polluted airs in the world, but no matter how bad the pollution is, the traffic jams are worse. I myself simply don't go out during the day if I can help it at all!

  64. Eiffel Tower and Derrieres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd tell them to shove that up their's in French, of course.

  65. Diesel engines ARE the problem. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Here's the problem: thanks to favorable tax laws, people in Europe are buying diesel-powered automobiles in huge numbers--in fact probably over 60% of new cars sold in Europe in recent years are diesel powered.

    Problem: until very recently, diesel-powered vehicles did not have to meet the same very strict emission requirements required for diesel car sales in the USA--namely, meeting the EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 (or California Air Reources Board ULEV Level II) certification. The Euro4 and Euro5 emissions requirements result in much higher NOx emissions and diesel particulates than the US standard, and as such with so many fairly polluting diesel auitomobiles, European cities in the very recent past started to run into problems with higher NOx and particulate levels in cities.

    Today, new European cars have to meet the new Euro6 emissions standard, which is almost identical to EPA Tier 2 Bin 5. This is why the likes of Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz can now sell a lot more diesel-powered cars in the USA--the diesel engines only need very little change to meet EPA standards.

    This is why I wonder London did not switch their famous double-decker buses and London taxis to compressed natural gas a LONG time ago. Such a change could have dramatically cleaned up the air of London, another city that has experienced NOx and particulate air pollution problems in recent years.

  66. Re:Internet Asshole FAIL :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yeah I see that I typo'd that Grammar Asshat.

  67. amount vs. number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grammar issue... it should be "due to the number of vehicles on the road" not " due to the amount of vehicles on the road". Amount is used for uncountable nouns, like water, bravery, etc. Number is used for countable nouns, like cars! Cheers.

  68. Re:Its silly by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

    ..." as long as I'm doing SOMETHING, I'm saving the planet" ...

    I recently heard the phrase "politician's syllogism" to refer to this statement...

  69. Already Over by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 1

    Those with odd-numbered plates lucked out; apparently they've already discontinued the practice, after having issued roughly 4000 tickets.

    One especially pertinent quote from the linked article: ""I know it's not great to say it but I'm willing to take my car and pay the fine to get my kids to school, because I don't have the choice," one woman told the TV network."

  70. The Icing on the Cake by skywire · · Score: 1

    And to top off the insanity, a so-called "hybrid" (a purely petrol-fired vehicle with regenerative braking) will be exempt, while a non-"hybrid" that gets better mileage will not? Idiotic.

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  71. Carpool Kenny to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  72. Re:Its silly by sjames · · Score: 1

    They can make a stink about it in the EU, probably file a lawsuit somewhere.

    Yes, make a stink about the stink. They can even make a federal case of it.

    :-)

  73. blow a piece of it up then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your solution is simple. Remove a chunk of it. There are several Muslim nations who could do that for you for free.

  74. Even car for sale, ISO: odd car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking mess.

  75. cheap cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, cheap cars, that will pollute even more than the "primary" car :D the solution becomes an even bigger problem... that's indeed very french

  76. Re:Its silly by Antonovich · · Score: 1

    The ban was only one day, yesterday, and there we so many exceptions you had to be a bit unlucky not be covered by one. My car battery has been flat for several months now, so I wasn't going to be driving anyway!

    And the "experts" are giving out contradictory information here, it's very annoying. Some are pointing at transport as the main contributor but that is a bit suspicious. The problems are absolutely not restricted to Paris - the high levels of particle pollution cover a third of the entire country of France. And not just in the cities, though it is worse there. Some are saying that when the east wind changes it will improve and that a lot of the grime is coming from dodgy factories in Eastern Europe. That in itself sounds fishy though, because we haven't heard anything about problems in Germany, and we would have if there had been problems there. But France has many more diesel cars than Germany, pointing back to transport. Who knows.

  77. Timely Car Pooling by advid.net · · Score: 1

    Testimony from a french driver with even plate (the restricted ones): he used the car pooling rule to be able to drive, but he droped the last passenger less than 1km from his own destination and was fined just after that... 22€ thank you.

  78. Re:Amsterdam & Copenhagen re-designed for bike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Diesel engine exhaust gases is generally cleaner than Otto engine exhaust.

  79. Re:Its silly by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    The combined pollution of all the cars on the road in the entire country of France is a tiny drop in the bucket of pollution caused by industrial waste, mostly from poor countries struggling to get a foothold in the global economy.

    Some polloution causes a global affect, however much of the impact of polloution is fairly localised. If the chineese in bejing have horriblly pollouted air to breathe then that sucks for them but it isn't the paris governements problem. OTOH poor air quality in paris (even if it's nowhere near as bad as bejing) is very much the paris governments problem.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  80. the smog isnt from the cars, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its from bad roads and no centralized heating.

  81. Re: Its silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big advantage of a car over public transport in my opinion is that you can always bring all your gadgets with you (i'd go crazy imagining going someplace and not carrying all my tools with me) and most importantly you don't have to see all these annoying other people that you have to deal with every day in public transport.

    I don't see how metro and such could be an alternative as long as they don't fix privacy. And of course there is the lack of control, which way to go, how fast to go, where to make a detour etc.

    If we could just stop being so many, then we'd probably have a lot less problems with pollution and resource usage all around the world.

    Just out of curiosity: If your car was banned from driving during that time, did you at least have a chance to take it out of the city?

  82. Who says diesel is cleaner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of the problem they are worried about is small particulates.

    Mostly from diesel exhaust.

    French taxes favour small diesel engine, because they produce less CO2.

  83. The Lynx Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news... sales of deodorant have risen sharply in the city. One person we spoke to at a major deodorant factory said "we used to make maybe one or two cans a month - now we're doing that every day!".

  84. Naturally government officials and cops are exempt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and their family members can just pass the ticket to someone they will owe a favor to later if they even get one

    government = organized crime

  85. Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story and the summary lack some key information, namely how much notice people were given before this ban. For something as key to people's lives as transportation, I'd expect a reasonable notice would be about a year, including reminder advertisements, etc. Environmental measures are not necessarily unreasonable (especially where air and water quality are causing health concerns), but they do need to be applied in a reasonable manner.

    1. Re: Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm saying is that story really needs some contextual information, so that the measure can be viewed by the reader from the perspective of someone that is affected by it. This story leaves a lot open to interpretation which may cause readers to incorrectly interpret the it based on how such a thing would effect them.

    2. Re: Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read more into it. The slashdot summary should really say, "Paris is currently undergoing a smog emergency." Rather than the general statement about pollution being a problem in many large cities.

  86. How progressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can try to take care of the pollution problem, but not the favelas problem.

  87. Re:Its silly by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

    In reality, the worst offenders in the pollution race include the US and China. Both are in the top ten most disgusting nations on earth... but as if that weren't bad enough, our consumerism is driving a lot of the consumption in developing nations, and we still burn more hydrocarbons per person than any other nation.

  88. Off-Topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "weigh-in", not "way-in".

  89. I doubt it's B&S at this point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Banning two stroke engines would do so much for our air quality. I have read that Briggs & Stratton have a lot of clout in Congress and have worked to shoot down multiple attempts at regulating small engines.

    You are right that two-stroke is inherently dirtier than four-stroke.

    At this point, though, nearly all lawn care equipment is (absurdly high polluting, absurdly noisy) 4-strokes. I don't think Briggs has made any 2-strokes for lawn care in at least a decade. Their web site says that they have recently begun making 2-strokes again, though, for snow (it doesn't say whether snow removal equipment or snowmobiles).

    Anyway, the problem with banning 2-strokes is chainsaws. Chainsaws need to have very high power to weight to be useable. You can't afford a 4-stroke's extra complexity and oil reservoir, and electric chainsaws are laughably weak and the battery ones take forever to recharge (as compared to topping up the tank, that is). Our society depends on chainsaws more than you might know - as the European earthworms continue to spread and weaken the root infrastructure of American roadside forests, and our weather patterns continue to change, we need those chainsaws to keep traffic flowing, particularly in desirable residential areas. Look at your local forest - see all those trees down? Now count the new trees coming in... we will survive the European earthworm apocalypse, (we don't have any choice) but it will take decades for our forests to fully adapt to the new conditions, and in the meantime we need those 2-stroke chainsaws to keep the roads open.

    Stihl is working hard on oil-less 2-stroke technology - and if they succeed, they will have something cleaner than the shitty, high-polluting 4-strokes Briggs and Stratton sells for lawnmowers.

  90. The movers and shakers want more pollution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand how the US hasn't caught up with this yet. When you see the deathtraps on US roads, it would be easy to line up car maker pockets with "safety" maintenance requirements. To "protect the children" of course...

    Don't kid yourself. Pollution is a desirable goal to the most powerful political players in the USA.

    "You show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy; I'll show you a fat cat who's using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is -- it is always a subsidy." ~ Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

  91. Re: Its silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we "stop being so many"? Population control? Are you volunteering?

  92. Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 days don't do a damn thing.

    I wouldn't want to drive in Paris regardless. Been there a couple times, looks like a nightmare. I will just keep taking the train in from Germany when I go again. The train system works just fine.