In Response to Pollution Spike, Paris Temporarily Halves Traffic By Decree

As reported by News.com.au, the city of Paris has implemented a harsh (but temporary) measure for drivers, in response to a surge in pollution: banning cars with even-numbered registration plates from the streets. According to the article, City mayor Anne Hidalgo had asked authorities to prevent one in every two cars from taking to the capital’s streets and make all public transport temporarily free in a bid to drive down pollution. Only vehicles with numberplates ending in an odd number will be allowed to drive, though exceptions exist for vehicles like taxis, electric cars and ambulances. ... Public transportation is to be free until at least Monday in Paris and its surrounding towns in an effort to force pollution down by coaxing drivers to give up their cars for a few days. Similar emergency measures were last implemented almost exactly a year ago — on March 17 — during a particularly bad spike in the pollution levels.

Comments

They should go

[invictusvoyd]

Only petrol no diesel instead of only odd no even ,, which does not make sense.

Re:They should go

[ThatsMyNick]

Why not? You allow only half the vehicles on the street today and the other half tomorrow. You have halfed your traffic and brought your pollution levels down. It is quite simple to enforce by number plates. Petrol today and diesel tomorrow on the other hand is difficult to enforce, makes no sense.

Re:They should go

[invictusvoyd]

What I was trying to say is instead of halfing the traffic , half the pollution itself . Diesel engines are much more polluting than petrol since the combustion is incomplete.

Re:They should go

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but you're missing the crucial point that "No Diesel" is very hard to enforce -- typically diesel commuter cars have only a small badge (if that) to distinguish them from the petrol versions, and the badge is different in appearance and placement between manufacturers and models. By contrast, banning cars based on license plate is very easy to enforce, as they are standard across vehicles and police are already accustomed to inspecting them by habit.

In short, a non-optimal rule that can be enforced is much better than an optimal rule that can't.

Re:They should go

[gl4ss]

diesel isn't so bad now on passenger cars.

very hard to enforce such a ban anyways, though it would be fairly simple to allow for full electrics. of course, this being about france, they'll probably just buy two shitty cars to drive every day anyways.

Re:They should go

[itzly]

Not really fair to diesel owners, which include most of the business vehicles.

Re:They should go

[trenien]

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

The diesel problem isn't a combustion one: diesel is more efficient than petrrol. In case you wonder what "more efficient", that is that the combustion rate is higher than that of petrol.

The problem lies with particle emissions / N compounds emissions. That's where diesel pollutes much more than petrol.

Re:They should go

[disambiguated]

Why not? You allow only half the vehicles on the street today and the other half tomorrow. You have halfed your traffic and brought your pollution levels down. It is quite simple to enforce by number plates. Petrol today and diesel tomorrow on the other hand is difficult to enforce, makes no sense.

I agree, but there's nothing in the article to suggest that it'll be half the vehicles today and the other half tomorrow. Instead it says "Only vehicles with numberplates ending in an odd number will be allowed to drive... for a few days" You'd think it'd be odd numbered plates on odd numbered days and even plates on even days, but that's not what it says.

But come to think of it, that'd be a little weird: you'd be able to drive your car into the city on one day, but wouldn't be able to drive it out the next. You wouldn't be able to go anywhere overnight, you'd have to wait a day for the return trip. They're using check points to stop cars from entering the city, but presumably they won't stop anyone leaving.

If you're already in the city, just plead ignorance; who watches the news anyway? :)

Re:They should go

[Anonymous Coward]

Cutting traffic via license plate doesn't work: http://www.cracked.com/article_20724_5-laws-that-made-sense-paper-and-disasters-in-reality.html

Re:They should go

[seoras]

Utter nonsense. I drive a French car which is a 2Litre diesel and it's cleaner than either its 1.6 or 2Litre petrol engined models.

http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/49545/citroen-c4-grand-picasso-2.0-bluehdi-exclusive+-150-eat6-auto-diesel-automatic-6-speed
http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/53981/citroen-c4-grand-picasso-1.6i-thp-exclusive-165hp-s&s-eat6-auto-petrol-automatic-6-speed

Re:They should go

[Anonymous Coward]

Paris is not Mexico city. Are you really suggesting that people buy a second car for one day of the year? In densely populated Paris?

Re: They should go

[BlueTrin]

That's good for the car industry :) joking aside the rule is not permanent so there is no need.

Re:They should go

[Anonymous Coward]

So a 1.6 litre bluemotion diesel is not allowed and a 5 litre V8 petrol is...see where your logic sucks?

Re:They should go

[thegarbz]

Except it's not a question of green. CO2 emissions here aren't what's causing the problem, it's particulate matter and Nitrous Oxides.
From your own link your diesel produces double the NOx emissions.

Not wanting cancer trumps the minor differences in CO2 emissions between the models, and diesel is definitely no longer considered greener or healthier the way it used to be.

Re:They should go

[drinkypoo]

Only petrol no diesel instead of only odd no even ,, which does not make sense.

Bullshit. Modern diesels are at least as clean as gassers. Gasoline engines produce much more soot than originally thought, just as much as diesels, and the soot is all fine particulates — the most hazardous kind.

France is trying to ban diesels because it's easier than increasing the tax on diesel fuel. Gasoline is taxed higher than diesel fuel. They get more tax revenue when you burn gasoline, especially since you burn more of it. Meanwhile, it takes 60% as much energy to make diesel as gasoline.

Re:They should go

[drinkypoo]

The problem lies with particle emissions / N compounds emissions. That's where diesel pollutes much more than petrol.

false

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Right back at you, kid.

It's not surprising that you don't know what you're talking about, because TPTB don't want you to know that gasoline is just as polluting as diesel. But it's sad that you're repeating this uninformed canard.

Nitric oxides are important, they are what causes acid rain, but they are nothing compared to particulates and CO2 — especially since we've reduced them so very much. And gasoline is actually worse than diesel in this regard because all of the soot is PM2.5. Modern diesels produce more PM2.5 than old ones like my 1982 300SD, though. While my 300SD has no emissions equipment (the EGR actually failed) it gets 30 MPG freeway which is right up there with the more efficient full size sedans of today, and the soot it produces is larger in size.

However, you're forgetting to account for mileage. Yes, the diesel produces more NOx per gallon. It also burns less gallons. The diesel doesn't produce twice as much NOx per mile traveled. In 1982, a full-size sedan typically got 20 mpg or less on the freeway, maybe 22 or so if it was spectacularly good. So I'm consuming significantly less fuel and producing notably less CO2 than I would if I were driving a gasser.

Of course, you could say we should all be driving new cars. In which case, I'll happily let you buy me one. I'll take a TDI, thanks.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow the ignorant idiots who you don't want to hear from anyway a fair chance at posting a comment.

Re:They should go

[Hognoxious]

Diesel engines are much more polluting than petrol

You're forgetting the lead compounds that petrol contains to reduce knocking.

We are playing at "pretend it's the 1980s", right?

Re:They should go

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole "diesel is greener" thing is one of the biggest scam in France's recent history. By carefully choosing the proper metric (CO2 emmissions) french government was able to support french car manufacturers through tax incentive. Most of the small city car are now running diesel which is an aberration if i ever saw one.
I have 3 cars at home, all of them running gasoline. At least i'm not pretending to drive "green" - I try to use my bike for that purpose.

Re:They should go

[Anonymous Coward]

Paris is not Mexico city. Are you really suggesting that people buy a second car for one day of the year? In densely populated Paris?

Do you think if it's found to be acceptable by the population it'll stay as only one day a year?

Re:They should go

[trenien]

I wasn't talking about the latest development as related to specific diesel emissions. I was simply commenting on the previous post :

Diesel engines are much more polluting than petrol since the combustion is incomplete.

I already know about the difference between the official trope about diesel pollution and the improvement reached nowadays, but that wasn't the point.

Re:They should go

[Paradise Pete]

But come to think of it, that'd be a little weird: you'd be able to drive your car into the city on one day, but wouldn't be able to drive it out the next.

They did this in San Jose, Costa Rica (and maybe they still do, I don't know). Cars were each restricted one weekday. Plates ending in 1 or 2 on Monday, 3 or 4 on Tuesday, etc. It wasn't 24 hours, it was from ~6am to 8pm.

It was somewhat successful, though not surprisingly considerably less than a 20% reduction. Taxis were not restricted, and of course wealthier families tended to have more than one car.

Re:They should go

[stooo]

>> Diesel engines are much more polluting than petrol
Not in France. Most diesel engines here have FAP filters.

Re:They should go

[Bert64]

That will just cause people to buy/rent a second car for use on the days their existing car isn't permitted...
The registration database includes information as to wether the vehicle uses petrol, diesel or electric etc so it's no harder to enforce.

Re:They should go

[Bert64]

The license database already includes information about what type of fuel a car uses, the same system that recognises license plates can also be configured to flag cars using the wrong fuel, or with an engine over a certain size etc.

Re:They should go

[Anonymous Coward]

This is by no means a new measure. It happens every few years - so far hoarding of cars has not happened. If it really becomes necessary regularly, then yes, something different has to be done.

Re:They should go

[mhotchin]

The 'system' is almost certainly the Mark I eyeball. I think you underestimate the configuration difficulties.

Re:They should go

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing in São Paulo (/. is known to cripple posts, the first word is Sao with a tilde, which makes the pronunciation be like "sawn"). BTW, "são" is short for "santo" ("saint"), so the name of the city (and capital of the state of the same name) would be "Saint Paul" in English.

We even use the same number scheme, but it goes in two periods: from 7AM to 10AM and from 5PM to 8PM. The main advertised reason is to better distribute traffic in peak hours, but we had similar anti-pollution measures that forbid the same plates on the same days for all the period going from 7AM to 8PM before.

Alas, it doesn't work. Everybody just buys another car, which can be used in the extended family (dad, son, daughter-in-law, her mother, brother, sister etc.). In the end, everybody can leave home at will. It's just the trouble of coordinating cars plates in the immediate family.

The only "advantage" of that thing is to produce more tickets (for using the car on a day it was not allowed). With more people than entire countries (20 million), I wonder what they could do to make our lives more miserable to force people to move.

Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_S%C3%A3o_Paulo

Back on topic, we're having a hard time with fossil fuels. Recent developments in electric car technology (see Tesla) and solar energy collectors (just saw an article about Costa Rica going entirely "no fuel") are a death knell to polluting engines.

Even if you don't want to quit using fossil fuels, it is obvious better procedures and filtering can be used with thermo-electric plants generating electricity, compared to millions of pollution generators across the landscape. Not to mention an electric car is 3 (THREE) times as efficient as a fuel one.

One must love to throw money away to keep on using old technologies instead of newer, more efficient ones. Lots of lobby money and advertising to keep people uninformed.

For the record, my car uses ethanol. I cannot buy electric cars where I live; I can buy hybrid at prohibitive prices -- they're not locally produced. Just went to a Shopping Center yesterday which has a special parking spot for electric vehicles (just one from some 5 or 10 previously available) as a green incentive. I never saw it used. Our government is made of people which, well, do not govern.

Ethanol is a nice fuel, because there's a cycle where you take CO2 from the atmosphere and then return it when it's burned. Also, it's very clean: no nitrogen or sulfur compounds released.

But it's best produced from sugarcane. Making it from corn simply makes no sense: people dumbly start to attack the substance ethanol instead of pondering about economic ways to produce it.

In São Paulo, ethanol is as widely available as gasoline and priced competitively.

Re:They should go

[BlackPignouf]

What?
You cannot masturbate while driving a diesel car in France?
I'm shocked.

Re:They should go

[BasilBrush]

I agree, but there's nothing in the article to suggest that it'll be half the vehicles today and the other half tomorrow. Instead it says "Only vehicles with numberplates ending in an odd number will be allowed to drive... for a few days" You'd think it'd be odd numbered plates on odd numbered days and even plates on even days, but that's not what it says.

"It" being an Australian news source that is being a bit vague. What actually happens in Paris is that it goes by whether the day of the month is odd or even. Monday is 23rd, so only odd digit cars are allowed on the road. If it extends to the 24th, then only even numbered cars will be allowed.

And the ban certainly does apply within the city. Pleading ignorance will still get you a fine.

Re:They should go

[BasilBrush]

That will just cause people to buy/rent a second car for use on the days their existing car isn't permitted...

If this were to happen all year round, sure people would buy a second car. But not for the very rare day that this happens.
And there are only a limited number of rental cars available. Of which only half would be useful.

The registration database includes information as to wether the vehicle uses petrol, diesel or electric etc so it's no harder to enforce.

There's no ring of barriers round Paris with computer controlled opening, such as you are imagining. This is enforced by police using eyesight. Even/odd is far easier than petrol/diesel, even if there were agreement that it would be reasonable to ban one or the other based on fuel. The French sense of egalitarianism would be happier with odd/even switched over each day, rather than one kind of car being continually banned every day.

Re:They should go

[hey!]

While it's true that a diesel without emissions control emits more highly dangerous particulates, this is not 1970. In an advanced economy any properly maintained, recent model diesel vehicle is going to be as clean as its gasoline counterpart.

It's worth considering banning the most polluting vehicles rather than arbitrarily banning half of all vehicles, but you can't do it this way. One way to do it would be to ban older vehicles, or vehicles of a certain weight carrying fewer than two or three passengers. But the even/odd license plate thing will work to reduce pollution and is simple to implement in a short term emergency -- although a massive inconvenience to people who can't carpool for some reason.

Re:They should go

[maestroX]

Nonsense? There should be a law against driving Picasso.
For god sake, did you even looked at the pictures in the links?!?

Re:They should go

[michelcolman]

The rule does not apply to "clean" cars (electric, hybrid,...). Never mind some hybrids burn more fuel than non-hybrids...

Re:They should go

[michelcolman]

Petrol in Europe is supposed to be lead free.

Re:They should go

[michelcolman]

It's actually odd plates on odd days, even plates on even days.

Re:They should go

[mrchaotica]

Considering the PM2.5 issue, I'm starting to wonder if "modern" diesels might actually be worse than older ones. At least older diesels produce big particulates that are more easily filtered or washed out by rain. Plus, they get better fuel economy, can run on biodiesel without clogging the common-rail injectors, etc.

Re:They should go

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh

Re:They should go

[smoot123]

I remember listening to an EconTalk podcast about when this was tried somewhere in Latin America. There was a bustling trade in fake license plates so you could swap them out and the number of cars people owned spiked up. In the end it was not very effective.

Obviously,the Paris experiment might have a different outcome but I suspect the Parisians will find ways to drive on the prohibited days. Uber/Lyft/Sidecar have to be giggling in glee. (I can't remember, did Paris ban ride sharing?)

Re:They should go

[Wycliffe]

Why not? You allow only half the vehicles on the street today and the other half tomorrow. You have halfed your traffic and brought your pollution levels down. It is quite simple to enforce by number plates. Petrol today and diesel tomorrow on the other hand is difficult to enforce, makes no sense.

What's strange though is that the article makes no mention of an alternating schedule. If it was alternating between odd and even
then this seems like a weird but reasonable solution. Just banning even number plates without alternating is very bizarre. Why not
just ban all the cars?

Re:They should go

[Opportunist]

This is France! It's mandatory to have a mademoiselle with you.

"Oh yes, the French are still MEN! They signal with their right and with the left they wave at the mademoiselles."
"And what do they hold the steering wheel with?"
"I said, the French are still MEN!"

Re:They should go

[drinkypoo]

Considering the PM2.5 issue, I'm starting to wonder if "modern" diesels might actually be worse than older ones.

The new ones have less of everything but PM2.5, so it's kind of a difficult argument. Best-case, IMO, is a modern (common-rail) diesel but without the emissions trap crap... run on biodiesel.

I'm thinking hard again about a propane conversion, but only if I can run it on methane as well. Then the hard part will be getting enough biomass, and getting it into one of those big bags people are using for water tanks now.

Re:They should go

[minstrelmike]

It's actually odd plates on odd days, even plates on even days.

Over the long run, that's statistically unfair to the even-plated people since the odd-plated folks can drive consecutive days on
Jan 31/Feb 1 (Feb 29/Mar 1 looooong run ;-) Mar 31/Apr1 May 31/Jun1 July 31/Aug 1 Aug 31/Sep 1 Oct 31/Nov 1

Re:They should go

[davester666]

you can easily reconfigure those with a simple tool like a screwdriver or a pencil or even your finger.

Re:They should go

[rogoshen1]

It's in Paris, so I believe it would be the Jacques eyeball.

Re:They should go

[allcoolnameswheretak]

They say diesel gives almost 1.5 times the fuel efficiency of petrol. So even if it is more polluting by the gallon, if you need less of it you have less pollution, no?

Re:They should go

[MaskedSlacker]

they'll probably just buy two shitty cars to drive every day anyways.

Which is EXACTLY what happened in Mexico City when they tried this sort of thing. It wound up making the problem worse.

Bureaucrats need to learn that you cannot force people to change their habits. They will work around any restrictions and then resent you for it. You have to change the environment that makes gas-burning cars attractive--improve public transit, subsidize electric (or raise petrol taxes, either way), mixed-zoning so people don't have to go as far for daily needs, etc.

Re:They should go

[mjwx]

typically diesel commuter cars have only a small badge (if that) to distinguish them from the petrol versions

I take it you're from the US where diesels are uncommon.

Its quite easy to tell when a car is a petrol or diesel, you just need to listen to it. If the car sounds like a tractor, it's a diesel.

Re:They should go

[michelcolman]

Oops, I didn't see the "pretend it's the 1980s" part. Woosh indeed.

Re:They should go

[tehcyder]

Its quite easy to tell when a car is a petrol or diesel, you just need to listen to it. If the car sounds like a tractor, it's a diesel.

It also belches black smoke and leaves a trail of dying wildlife in its wake.

Re:They should go

[tehcyder]

Oops, I didn't see the "pretend it's the 1980s" part. Woosh indeed.

So on slashdot, not only do we not read TFA or even TFS, we now don't even read the comments we're replying to?

Re:They should go

[sociocapitalist]

Yes, but you're missing the crucial point that "No Diesel" is very hard to enforce -- typically diesel commuter cars have only a small badge (if that) to distinguish them from the petrol versions, and the badge is different in appearance and placement between manufacturers and models. By contrast, banning cars based on license plate is very easy to enforce, as they are standard across vehicles and police are already accustomed to inspecting them by habit.

In short, a non-optimal rule that can be enforced is much better than an optimal rule that can't.

It can be enforced by simply requiring a sticker on the windshield saying what kind of car it is and then impounding any car that doesn't have a sticker that matches the motor (or whatever the requirements are) in the car.

Re:They should go

[michelcolman]

I know, I hate it when people do what I did there...

I think I may have mistaken the second line for a signature and therefore skipped it. (I know, the actual sig was below the "--")

Beijing doubled polution output to compensate

[Anonymous Coward]

Advantage take every opportunity!

Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad fuel. Thankfully the US never adopted that mess.

Re:Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron.

Evens are evil

[stimpleton]

Having been through carless days in the 70's, it is trivial to make evens and odds on alternate days, with maybe Fridays as all allowed. Alienating one group (evens) makes it personal.

Re:Evens are evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it will alternate even and odd, the article is incomplete...

Re:Evens are evil

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I'm guessing that French politicians have odd numbered plates . . .

Re:Evens are evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time Paris did this it did alternate between evens and odds; I suspect it will this time as well if it goes on for multiple days, but the article does not say.

Re:Evens are evil

[hcs_$reboot]

I'm guessing that French politicians have odd numbered plates . . .

They have odd or even numbered plates. That only depends on their current needs.

Re:Evens are evil

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably have one of each, poor things.

Re:Evens are evil

[disambiguated]

Of course it will alternate even and odd, the article is incomplete...

I don't think it will, at least not daily. That would result in a weird game of musical cars. You could drive somewhere one day and then have to wait a day to drive back. Annoying as it is if you have the wrong plate, it makes more sense not to alternate (at least not often, and hopefully the ban won't be around that long anyway.)

I wonder if they are banning electric cars with even numbered plates. I'd love to see the reactions to that.

Re:Evens are evil

[Barsteward]

try reading the summary ... " though exceptions exist for vehicles like taxis, electric cars and ambulances."

Re: Evens are evil

[Anonymous Coward]

no need to wonder about electric vehicles. read the summary.

Re:Evens are evil

[paulatz]

Of course it will alternate even and odd, the article is incomplete...

I don't think it will, at least not daily.

What you think does not matter, the reality is that they will alternate if the measure lasts more than one day. The measure is even called "circulation alternée", let me not translate that for you.

Re:Evens are evil

[drinkypoo]

I'm guessing that French politicians have odd numbered plates . . .

These measures do not affect the wealthy, who can afford multiple vehicles and custom plates. They only affect the poor. I believe a politician, upon hearing this news, said what, they cannot afford to get to work? let them drive their second cars, but that cannot be confirmed.

Re:Evens are evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I live in Paris, if you drive your car to work within the city limits, you're already friggin' rich.

Re:Evens are evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is inaccurate. They do alternate between evens and odds. There are also many exceptions:
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/03/21/la-circulation-alternee-comment-ca-fonctionne_1225458

Re:Evens are evil

[Anonymous Coward]

These measures do not affect the wealthy, who can afford multiple vehicles and custom plates. They only affect the poor.

Affecting "the wealthy" was not the point. The purpose is to keep half the vehicles out of the city, not 'punish the wealthy' as a secondary effect.
These measures do not affect the poor (who have multiple vehicles) either.

Disclaimer: was a fan drinkypoo, where have you been?

That's NOT the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

It's lack of bathing. Those French bathe once every other week. Cologne is heavy in the air but cannot mask B.O, either of which is sure to be a significant AQ factor of the highest order.

Re:That's NOT the cause

[hcs_$reboot]

Interesting post - but what kind of time machine did you use to post it from 1653?

Re:That's NOT the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

exists for a reason.

Re:That's NOT the cause

[sjames]

Yes, and that reason is that during the cleanup after WWII, the French didn't bath much due to a soap shortage. Having occupying Nazis goose stepping everywhere will do that and it takes a while to recover.

I don't imagine you'd smell all that pleasant if the last time you were able to find a bar of soap was 6 months ago.

Re:That's NOT the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Reinforced by the fact that marketing has convinced Americans that they smell bad, when nobody saw a problem before, and they still don't in Europe.

Re:That's NOT the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: Cologne, French for "Bathes? Bathes? We don't need no stinkin' bathes".

Re:That's NOT the cause

[sjames]

There is that too. People think that if they don't smell like the latest perfume added to their soap that they need more.

Re:That's NOT the cause

[drinkypoo]

One word: Cologne, French for "Bathes? Bathes? We don't need no stinkin' bathes".

Yeah, everyone I know who has actually been to France says that the French still don't bathe, and still wear too much perfume. The combination is especially revolting. It's how patchouli got the full force of its bad name. Yeah, it smells like BO already. Then hippies started using it to "cover" BO, which is to say, amplify. It has a superadditive affect with hippie stink.

Most cologne and perfume is toxic, yes most. The stuff ought to be banned, or at least strictly regulated which would amount to basically the same thing. In particular they should never be able to use anything which even might be toxic in the same mixture as musk, whose job is to carry compounds through cell walls. Axe body spray is probably dumping more toxic compounds into the nation's youth than industrial activity.

Re:That's NOT the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

when nobody saw a problem before, and they still don't in Europe.

Unless they travel to a warm-weather climate such as Thailand. You think waterboarding is torture? Try riding in an elevator surrounded by Northern Europeans.

Re:That's NOT the cause

[Cederic]

You'd be wrong then. Soap is not needed to avoid smelling like a French man. Just regular bathing.

Other than getting oil and other sticky substances off my hands I can't recall the last time I used soap. My work colleagues might hesitate to tell me if I did smell but my dance partners wouldn't - they'd not only tell me, they'd refuse to dance with me.

Luckily I shower daily (or more) and stay clean and avoid smelling of dirt, stale sweat and garlic.

Soap? Totally fucking irrelevant.

Re:That's NOT the cause

[sjames]

Or your partner just got used to it and you have been walking blissfully unaware past wilting flowers and bloodshot eyes.

Or perhaps you aren't also short on antiperspirant and fresh water to shower in.

Re: That's NOT the cause

[Fwipp]

Wash your hands, please.

Re:That's NOT the cause

[Mryll]

Tyler Durden is most disappointed

Re:That's NOT the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Wash your fucking hands. I don't care if you don't scrub down in the shower, or don't use shampoo. But wash your fucking hands. After you use the bathroom, before you prepare food, whenever a normal person would wash their fucking hands, wash your fucking hands. For the sake of everyone around you, wash your fucking hands. Don't use antimicrobial soap. Regular soap gets rid of enough dirt, grime, and pathogens to do the job and there's evidence that using antimicrobial soap is counterproductive. But wash your fucking hands.

Clearly no man made!!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no evidence that this pollution is man made. In a free country I shoul be able to drive all I want.

Re:Clearly no man made!!

[hcs_$reboot]

Funny. We're not talking about global warming related issues (they're related ... but that's not the point in Paris now). It's been proved that pollution will decrease a lot if nobody uses a car in Paris and suburbs. Since it's not practically possible (yet), Paris mayor, Ms Hidalgo, requested half of her gents not to drive on a given day. That makes sense, no?

Re:Clearly no man made!!

[Anonymous Coward]

le woosh est tu

Re:Clearly no man made!!

[BarbaraHudson]

Remember how crystal-clear the skies were when all airplanes were grounded after 9/11?

Temporary

[GrandCow]

Band-aid on a gushing wound here. We're just pushing issues around and avoiding the real one.

Re:Temporary

[hcs_$reboot]

Let start with band-aid. Use bigger guns (only) if necessary - later.

Re:Temporary

[GrandCow]

We've been doing this for years, both with cap&trade and with better emissions standards. Countries need to start doing a lot more and not just passing the buck so politicians can get reelected again. At some point we as a whole need to make some changes that are going to make people comfortable with the norm pretty unhappy. They can deal with it and adjust, but the norm isn't going to work.

Re:Temporary

[GrandCow]

I can't edit, but when I say doing this for years I mean putting band-aids on. We need real, legitimate change.

Re:Temporary

[itzly]

People don't want change if it causes short term discomfort.

Re:Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose you have a company that really really needs to use cars, but half it's fleet is grounded because it ends in the wrong number ...

And since cities can only grow, this kind of thing will happen more and more often. They'll most definetly look at electrical alternatives.

Re:Temporary

[GrandCow]

Sadly, I agree, and it's also the reason that no real change will ever happen until we are literally on the brink of extinction and we're forced to choose between killing off the entire race or reverting to an age without fossil fuels (or moving on to an age where we no longer need fossil fuels by using alternate fuels). Politicians in the US shoot for being career politicians, so they won't ever rock the boat. We'll never get the change that's needed until the last possible second.

Re:Temporary

[GrandCow]

I want your post to be true so much. In reality, they'll just apply for the exception in the law and if they are denied, they will throw money to a politician until they get added to the exception list.

Re:Temporary

[Shadow of Eternity]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

Be part of the solution. Commit suicide. You are obviously a very miserable person be around.

Re:Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

France has 5 weeks mandatory vacations and 10 days public holidays. They don't mind just taking a day off now and then. You're applying an American view of work on France. Taxis are exempt and if you're running a fleet of delivery vehicles then guess what? It's okay if you have to wait an extra day. Americans need to calm down.

They are aware...

[emj]

There was recently a good talk about smog in China. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Good.

[sound vision]

Usually I'm against nanny-stating, but in this case there is a clear and immediate problem, and there is a quick way to mitigate it. What I hope will happen is that this will (1) put more focus on pollution in France, and (2) teach the people there alternate ways to go about their day that won't pump gobs of pollution into the air.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll likely convince some people to continue with public transportation, which would be a victory, even if small.

Re:Good.

[lorinc]

They'll likely convince some people to continue with public transportation, which would be a victory, even if small.

Probably not. We are voting this Sunday. My guess is that people will be so upset not to be allowed to take their car tomorrow, that they will vote for the very first idiot that will promise to ban the measure. Usually, these idiots are right wing extremists.

I'm not very optimistic. Mankind is greedy by nature and probably can't understand the logic of environment preservation as long as it generates a net individual loss.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it creates a net individual loss for everyone then it is not worth it.
Pollution is noticed by the people. But it should be up to them whether they accept some pollution for ease of mobility or not. No nature-conservatist should be allowed to dictate how much comfort people have to give up for less pollution.

Re:Good.

[sjames]

Right, that's why the pollution is being controlled. Your freedom to pollute stops at the other guy's lungs.

Continued high pollution is a net loss in terms of healthcare, illness, and early deaths.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Continued high pollution is a net loss in terms of healthcare, illness, and early deaths."

The vast majority of humans don't see that far ahead. What matters to them is only how it directly affects them in a concrete measurable way. Taxes are going to raise regardless, so they won't associate that with being caused by excessive pollution - they'll associate that with the politician being an ass, and someone to vote out of office.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit like how smoking is slowly but surely being made more difficult and expensive, and perhaps eventually will disappear altogether.

Re: Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't even classify this as nanny state actions. They are attemping to solve a collective, societal problem. It's certainly intrusive but not the same as dictating how you behave in a way that only affects the individual because the state has decided it's for your own good.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

They do this in Beijing. It doesn't work. People just end up buying 2 cars with odd and even numbered plates and alternate between cars.

Re:Good.

[BasilBrush]

Indeed. This is an example of an issue on which the Libertarians and believers in the Adam Smith's "invisible hand" are being very quiet. Because they have no answer. Regulation and government nudging are the only things that can deal with a pollution problem.

Re:Good.

[0123456]

The 'Greens' were pushing people to drive diesels years ago. Now they're pushing people to stop driving diesels, because, as we pointed out at the time, diesel is a crappy, stinky, carcinogenic monstrosity.

Maybe it would be easier to just stop listening to the 'Greens' in the first place.

On the plus side, that's likely to happen after the next election, as this kind of nonsense just pushes people to vote for parties that haven't been taken over by Watermelons.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually, these idiots are right wing extremists.

Yeah, it's very extreme to want to be able to use the automobile you already purchased for the purpose of traveling.

Those lunatics.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad. They've gone and annoyed a good deal of the vote (30-40% depending on how many voters have cars), by trying to tell people what to do.

Imagine being one of these people with an even numbered car. You need to get to work out of the city. The only bus that runs there stops half a mile down the road and runs once every two hours.

You can't use your car because some woman said so. What do you do? Vote for the first idiot who gives you your car back.

I would anyway.

Re:Good.

[vakuona]

The market solution is called a tax. The collective charge a tax to enable themselves to correct this negative externality - in this case the pollution. That or regulation to ensure that your freedom to travel in a car doesn't interfere with my freedom to not breathe noxious fumes.

Re:Good.

[BasilBrush]

No, taxes intended to modify people's action to some positive result are government nudging. Your libertarians and your Adam Smith types certainly wouldn't accept them as being part of the market.

They are STILL being very quiet, because having thought about it for some time they still don't have a market solution to pollution.

Re:Good.

[vakuona]

But a tax is the people (through their government) setting their price to allow the negative externality. You pay the tax, and you can pollute as much as you want to (until we raise the taxes again).

Of course taxes can be badly designed, but he basic idea is sound.

A tax is a market mechanism, with the people (the government) being the only "seller" of "pollution credits".

Only people who have a very limited (and sometimes deliberately so) understanding of markets deny that taxes are sometimes an essential market correction.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. This is an example of an issue on which the Libertarians and believers in the Adam Smith's "invisible hand" are being very quiet. Because they have no answer. Regulation and government nudging are the only things that can deal with a pollution problem.

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to correct your ignorance.

Adam Smith was a big believer in regulation. A large portion of the "The wealth of nations", the book in which the "invisible hand" quote appears, discusses the need to regulate markets and businessmen. The word "free" with respect to markets has never referred to a lack a regulation, but rather to situations where prices are not fixed by government or by businesses acting in collusion.

I'd say it's time for you to go read the book, which is freely available, being long out of copyright. It has to be really embarrassing to be caught making such a basic (and easily avoidable) mistake.

Nobody with any sense argues with reasonable environmental regulations, the problem that society faces is determining what is reasonable. This requires separating out the strident demands of the environmental fanatics (almost always misrepresenting the facts, or grossly misunderstanding situations, or both) from the rational, well informed folks. It's always a mistake to let fanatics dictate policy.

Re:Good.

[BasilBrush]

Oh, don't get me wrong, nudging with taxes is absolutely essential.

My point is that libertarians and Adam Smith laissez faire, invisible hand types universally decry it as distorting the market, not part of the market. And to that extent I agree with them, it isn't part of the market. It's their philosophy that the market must be left alone that is wrong.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary - pollution is an externality. Libertarians aren't opposed to all government regulation, they just want the least amount of regulation that works (defining what is working vs. what isn't, though... that's hard). The free-market approach would be to tax emissions such that money is transferred from polluters to those negatively impacted by the pollution.

Should sexist opensource developers be blackballed

[Anonymous Coward]

Should sexist opensource developers have their projects censored or removed?

Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech.

A story posted by the editor of the popular Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was later manually removed(2). The reason cited was the game developer's unacceptable views on social issues such as gender equality (3).

The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(4).

With the recent inclusion of a code of conduct(5) for those wishing to contribute to the Linux Kernel some questions now need to be asked and answered about the inclusion of code from people who are known to engage in or promote socially unacceptable attitudes or harrasments of those whom the free-software movement would prefer to attract in their place:

* Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
* Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
* Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
* Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
* Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?

and

* What are the consequences of not doing this

Citations:
(0) Past related incident: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310
(1) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/...
(2) Removed story URL: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
(3) http://www.phoronix.com/forums...
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(4) https://webcache.googleusercon...
(5) Linux "Code of Conflict"

But are cars the source

[EEPROMS]

I often hear of government agencies blaming cars but when you actually look at the sources of the pollution post these so called events a majority of the time it has nothing to do with cars.

Re:But are cars the source

[itzly]

In this case, talking about Paris, the pollution will be dominated by cars. There aren't many industrial sources in the city.

Not alternating numbers on alternating days?

[chrism238]

Really? Have gendarmes only been trained to recognise odd numbers, and learning two sets of numbers is beyond their training?

Re:Not alternating numbers on alternating days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Police, not gendarmes. This is the city of Paris, not the countryside. Also, don't be an idiot.

Re:Not alternating numbers on alternating days?

[chrism238]

Gendames can serve anywhere in France. Time for you to grow up?

Re:Not alternating numbers on alternating days?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the person who posted before. Just wanted to apologise. I completely misread/misunderstood your comment. I realise now that I actually agree with what you were saying and I'm sorry for saying what I did!

Also, the second part of my comment was directed at what I thought you were saying (rather than you using "gendarmes").

Sorry again.

Too bad there's so much car ownership there...

[tlambert]

Too bad there's so much car ownership there...

If only fewer people owned cars there, and instead car-pooled using Uber...

Re: Too bad there's so much car ownership there...

[BlueTrin]

Are you trolling ? This would not reduce traffic unless people share a car.

Re: Too bad there's so much car ownership there...

[Anonymous Coward]

People will drive around for a long time looking for a parking space .... parking in Paris is notoriously bad.

Re: Too bad there's so much car ownership there...

[BasilBrush]

There already is a shared car scheme in Paris, which followed on from the shared bicycles scheme Velib.

https://www.autolib.eu/en/vent...

And the issue here is pollution, not traffic. These shared cars are electric, so not a problem.

Re: Too bad there's so much car ownership there...

[emj]

And the issue here is pollution, not traffic. These shared cars are electric, so not a problem.

In the spring lots of particles are released from the road, those particles have slowly accumulated during a long period of wet weather. Decreasing traffic reduces the amount of those particles that are launched up into the air, not by much, but hopefully enough to not be fined for it. I guess electric cars help a bit but not enough by a long shot.

There are three ways to solve mobility in cities

1. walk
2. public transport
3. bikes

Trying to use cars for personal transport has failed for all cities that has tried it.

Same last year

[Anonymous Coward]

The same happened a year ago, air pollution prompting the even-odd license plate number scheme. Worked then.

Monsieur!

[Anonymous Coward]

I sell cheap license plates with 2 days guaranteed delivery!

That's hardly news

[equinx]

It happens once or twice every year...

This FP for GNNA!?

[Anonymous Coward]

pa8t of GNAA if OR MISLEAD THE

Too broad

[thsths]

They have a specific problem (NOx and PM), but they address it with broad measures. It may work to some degree, but the costs are significant. (And I still remember car being completely banned on a Sunday... that was even broader, but it also carried a sense of purpose and community.)

But my main issue is that these measures are very late. Surely they should be taken before pollution reaches unacceptable level, to prevent that from happening.

Re:Too broad

[SuricouRaven]

It's temporary. The pollution is being concentrated by weather right now - once the weather changes, the temporary measure can be rescinded.

Re:Too broad

[tepples]

And I still remember car being completely banned on a Sunday

That sounds backwards. Where I live, public transportation is "completely banned on a Sunday". (Source: fwcitilink.com)

Re:Too broad

[emj]

CITILINK BUSES DO NOT OPERATE on Sundays, New
Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

I guess now we know why traffic is such a big problem for LA.

Petrol is worse than diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, more PM10s with Diesel than Petrol, but PM2.5s are too small to block with respirators and until recently were unable to be measured. They're much worse than PM10s

Guess which engine produces a lot of PM2.5?

That's right: Petrol engines.

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

Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[Brulath]

Public transport uptake would likely increase dramatically, at least here in Australia, if it were free. It probably wouldn't change train usage, but for buses and trams there would likely be a marked uptake. I suppose it might be a hard sell due to the cost, though the benefits of fewer cars on the road might sell that pretty well.

At a guess, I'd say there are two main reasons people don't use public transport: it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path, and it's inconvenient to have to carry the correct quantity of cash / make sure a bus card has enough money on it; for the poorer demographic the cost part is probably a greater component. Having more people using public transport would probably result in increased availability / paths for public transport, mitigating the first problem a bit.

Just seems a bit weird; if you want cars off the road, reduce the benefits of using one (using a bus would eliminate wear & tear, fuel, and parking costs). As a bonus your population's health might improve very slightly as people are walking to and from the bus stops.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this idea. In many cases, it's accepted that certain bus or train lines run at a net loss, but are kept running anyway because they're of a benefit to the community and stimulate commerce. In some areas, elderly people get a free bus pass and it helps keep them mobile even if they can't, or can no longer drive.

However, simply making it free would probably "create unfair competition on the free market" in violation of other regulations.

Privatization of public transport in Europe was a terrible idea. The consumer still has little to no choice. Not happy with the train service provided by company A? There's a company B, and even a company C, but they run entirely different train lines to different destinations. So you don't really have a choice.

But companies A, B and C all got their "concessions" through bidding, so somehow it's a free market.

Re: Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[BlueTrin]

When public transport is free or when people do not get fined for not paying you see more hooliganism from my experience of growing up in Paris. In the suburbs trains you see random young people hanging there going to random places to find targets to mug for money or phones. They also cut seats and pain graffitis.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should visit more cities elsewhere in the world :)

London has stopped accepting cash on buses. You have to use an Oyster card (a bit like Melbourne's Myki), or a contactless debit/credit card.

Public transport in the big Aussie cities just hasn't been planned very well. Importing urban planners from the US and building a system based on the car hasn't set you up very well.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[itzly]

Where I live, public transport is running at peak capacity during rush hour. Reducing the price isn't going to have a significant effect on the road traffic. Making it free will likely attract some people that aren't currently on the road at all, such as junkies looking for a comfortable place to sit.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[JBMcB]

At a guess, I'd say there are two main reasons people don't use public transport: it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path, and it's inconvenient to have to carry the correct quantity of cash / make sure a bus card has enough money on it; for the poorer demographic the cost part is probably a greater component.

You're only looking at the demand side of things. You also need to look at the supply side. If you are going to greatly increase demand, you're going to have to increase supply. Public transportation systems don't always scale linearly in terms of cost per supply. In other words, you can't just throw more buses and trains at the problem to increase capacity. You need to hire more people, build more stations, which increases fixed costs in relation to maintenance and HR costs. Seemingly paradoxically, buses do more damage to roads than cars, so road maintenance costs will increase, even if you decrease the amount of traffic (all that really matters as far as road damage goes is the weight of the vehicle)

The last thing you need to look at is if you're actually going to reduce emissions. If there is a lot of traffic regardless - say in a downtown area during rush hour - buses generate significantly more pollution than cars. Unless each bus is completely full, the emissions benefit may not cover the number of vehicles on the road. This may be mitigated by building more efficient buses, or better traffic management, or trying to optimize your routes to increase ridership (not trivial - see traveling salesmen problem.)

Anyways, what you need to do is look at all these costs and decide if it makes sense. It might be cheaper and have more impact to simply subsidize the heck out of plug-in hybrids, or develop a Zipcar style system.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[AmiMoJo]

Paris has reasonable public transport I think, and France isn't bad for EV charging points either. Of course, EVs are exempt from this ban since they don't emit anything.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[hairyfeet]

They could pay you a couple bucks and it wouldn't work down here in the southern USA as the few places that actually HAVE public transport like buses have lines that goes from the 'hood to downtown and back. Don't want to deal with junkies, fights, thieves, or go to the hood? tough luck.

This is why i want to just slap any US political hack that says "oh we'll just jack taxes and they can use public transport"...yeah don't fucking exist and I don't see YOUR ass cutting the defense budget in half to pay for one, do I?

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[Lumpy]

I'd gladly cut the Defense budget in 1/2. But I'm also the type that would spend that on NASA, NOAA, DOT and fixing the embarrassment that is the United states infrastructure.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[tepples]

it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path

Bingo. There are a lot of cities where the number of lines operating on Sundays or major holidays is a big fat goose egg (zero). So riders have to schedule their lives around 36 to 60 hour scheduled downtimes.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[YoopDaDum]

Public transports in Paris are already quite cheap (the numbers I'll provide are from memory, please double check if you want to be sure). A few years ago I read that about 1/4th only of the cost is paid by the end user, the rest is subsidies from the various levels of government. And this is even more favorable nowadays: there used to be zones where the farther you were from Paris, the higher you paid. All this has been simplified with a unique fare where the people in the two center zones pay slightly more (peanuts really, and I'm one of those paying more) and all the others pay noticeably less.

But then during peak time several places are already congested, and it's not easy to scale up --- digging new holes for new lines in a city whose underground is already a Swiss cheese is not simple nor cheap. Case in point: the RER A, the biggest east-west line, is one the the congested part. It will be closed for a few months this summer for improvement. It's badly needed, but it'll be quite some mess during the work... Still, there's a lot of investment in improving the infrastructure, mostly with surrounding lines to direct suburb to suburb travel without having to go through the center of Paris (should help congestion a lot).

Still, even with all this a lot of people use their cars. The region is rather densely populated, and even if public transports are really good and cheap they can only do so much.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[emj]

Anyways, what you need to do is look at all these costs and decide if it makes sense. It might be cheaper and have more impact to simply subsidize the heck out of plug-in hybrids, or develop a Zipcar style system.

Cars costs a lot, especially in space, that is the biggest subsidize you get. Sure it's a sunk cost for all apartments and houses, but it's still something that we pay a lot of money to maintain and extend. Individual cars will never ever be cheap, it might seem like it's cheap if you think that everyone should have one.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[JBMcB]

Which is why zipcars make sense. Some people only need to drive once and a while. Some people can use public transportation some of the time but not all of the time. Some people can't use public transportation at all and have to drive everywhere.

Unless you know what mix you're going to end up with, throwing gobs of money at public transportation might be a waste. A mixed system is probably better.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree in principle that more should be done to lower the relative cost of public transit; however, trying to make it look free to the driving public would certainly cause the so called 'deficit hawks' where I am to go nuts. Part of the issue is that people often want transit to 'pay for itself' but are perfectly willing to subsidize highways with lower than needed gas taxes & by offloading parking costs to businesses & homeowners. About 20% of the cost of owning any building in the US goes into parking, & drives up costs for all restaurant goers, shoppers & homeowners. If subsidies like this are made more transparent by doing things like making people pay for parking, then public transit would become a more viable option in many areas. Unfortunately the act of making people pay directly for such things would go over as well as hiking the gas tax, a complete non-starter here.

On the other side of things there may be some ways to make transit 'pay for itself' better, but that would require some significant policy changes. At least that is here in the US we need changes, not sure how it works in Australia. In the US we often measure payback in terms of ticket sales, and we often need other other money to help fill in the funding gaps. I've heard that in Hong Kong the transit developer captures nearly all of the value in the land surrounding transit lines, making the lines pay for themselves. In the US development along transit is generally treated as a government subsidized windfall for land owners rather than a funding opportunity. As a result our lightly subsidized transit looks expensive compared to our heavily subsidized roads, while in Hong Kong transit looks like it more than pays for itself. I think we should all stand back & ask ourselves how we can emulate this sort of success in our own countries & make sure that we find a way to provide cheap reliable transit options.

Wikipedia mentions how it works in Hong Kong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation#Property_management

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Public transport uptake would likely increase dramatically, at least here in Australia, if it were free.

That's not true, (un)fortunately: http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/free/

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[dasunt]

If there is a lot of traffic regardless - say in a downtown area during rush hour - buses generate significantly more pollution than cars. Unless each bus is completely full, the emissions benefit may not cover the number of vehicles on the road.

Assuming that the average car gets 25 mpg, and the average bus gets even 5 mpg, and that idling emissions are proportional to the gas mileage, wouldn't it take just five passengers on the bus to equal one automobile with a single driver?

I'm not sure where you are at, but when I took the bus to work, I don't think I was ever the sole passenger.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[speedlaw]

At the end of the year, I look at the disgusting amount of money I give the Feds. I always hope that paid for a solar panel on the ISS, or maybe a few titanium bolts.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[quenda]

Where I live, public transport is running at peak capacity during rush hour.

A lot of places effectively have free off-peak travel for commuters. Anyone who regularly uses buses or trains to commute has a weekly or monthly travel card.
I don't know why they can't extend it to give everyone free off-peak travel. The cost is highly subsidised already, so it makes sense to get more people using it for a small drop in revenue.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[guruevi]

Because in most places, public transport is ran by the government and governments/politicians have a tendency to make businesses and contributors happy, not their constituents. Most public transport thus does not run where YOU want to go but rather where people go to spend money, where contributors have lobbied the thing to be built and whatever other decisions make the now privatized bus companies the most money (cutting lines, frequency and convenience while increasing costs and filling vehicles well beyond their capacity).

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[Lumpy]

If you paid $1000 in taxes...

$600 went to buy bullet to kill people.
$200 went to pay for operation costs for government
$100 went to pay for infrastructure
$50 went to pay for social programs (Education is a social program, damn poor wanting to learn) ......

$0.05 of your taxes went to NASA and science.

As a country we value killing people way way above science.

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[sociocapitalist]

I'd say there are two main reasons people don't use public transport: it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path, and it's inconvenient to have to carry the correct quantity of cash / make sure a bus card has enough money on it.

3) it's not reliable, for whatever reason (mechanical, strikes, etc)

Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry. Social spending is nearly triple military spending. Not one tenth like you seem to believe.

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

> Only vehicles with numberplates ending in an odd number will be allowed to drive

It's simpler than that: Numberplates ending in an odd number can run on days with odd numbers; Numberplates ending in an even number can run on days with even numbers.

Obviously, the longer term solution requires major changes:
- reduce the need for transport, whether it's people (telecommute, move closer to one's work) or cargo (the end of buy and discard)
- move cargo from trucks to rail
- ban diesel cars
- replace gasoline cars with electric cars, bicycles, public transport.

Re:Correction

[kuzb]

This sounds like a much better solution than arbitrarily imposing a ban on only half the population. Making it apply to everyone in some way is a much saner approach.

The will soon be mostly unemployed anyways

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to draconian environmental laws such as the above, and high taxes, most of France's industrial base will leave the country. Pollution due to cars and industry will go down because few will have jobs, however pollution due to rioters burning things down will be on rise.

Keep pumping!

[AndyKron]

Keeping pumping out those babies. We wouldn't want the rich folks to suffer a less than stellar return on their investments.

typical ignorant American

[dltaylor]

The diesel sold in Europe is much better fuel than the one we dump into trucks and trains. Lower sulfur, for one thing, although we are catching up. Most environmentally friendly motor fuel is diesel (no, it is not the remote-polluting electrics; look at the output of, for example, the Four Corners power complex). Modern biodiesel burns clean and has a very low carbon footprint. Soot traps take care of the particulates.

Additionally, diesel fuel has much more energy available by volume or mass, is less flammable, and hygrophobic (doesn't pull water from the air into the fuel tank) than the lighter hydrocarbons (gasoline, methane, ethanol), or hydrogen (unless fused, of course)

I wish I could have purchased the turbo-diesel version of my Jaguar XJ, rather than having to settle for an XJ-R.

Re:typical ignorant American

[drinkypoo]

The diesel sold in Europe is much better fuel than the one we dump into trucks and trains. Lower sulfur, for one thing, although we are catching up.

Our trucks are already running on ULSD, but not our trains, or our ships.

hygrophobic (doesn't pull water from the air into the fuel tank) than the lighter hydrocarbons

But diesels have more openly vented tanks, letting air move in and out of the tank freely while the vehicle isn't even being used. I don't think this is a benefit worth mentioning.

Anyway, modern gasoline engines (small, direct-injected, with a turbo) are even more efficient than diesels, because you don't have to carry around a heavy block. And modern diesels re-burn their exhaust until they make fine smog just like a gasser. So the advantages are vanishing. We even know how to make a 1:1 biofuel replacement for gasoline out of any organic material. Unfortunately, BP and DuPont sued Gevo to prevent them from selling it to us. We'd be able to buy it in the USA right now if not for BP and DuPont, the evil fucks.

Re:typical ignorant American

[s122604]

Most environmentally friendly motor fuel is diesel

no it isn't, not even by a long shot.. Natural Gas and Propane vehicles trounce them in terms of environmental impact. In most places, considering the power grid is rapidly cleaning itself up, electrics would as well.

Do you think that diesel fuel magically jumped from miles down in the earth, refined itself, and showed up in your gas station all by itself? It's a very energy intensive process, using a lot of electricity usually derived from coal or natural gas, and/or coal/natural gas burnt right in the refinery just to get it to that state. So not only is your diesel car a point-source polluter, it is very much a "remote polluter" in its own right..

2) you can bloviate about "remote polluting" electric cars all you want, but the fact of the matter is that coal, as a percentage of the US's energy mix is going down, not up, and its going down quite rapidly. And even if it wasn't (which again, it is), it is arguable that addressing emissions at one managed point-source is preferable to distributing the polution across thousands of engines all in various state of tuns.

Re: typical ignorant American

[Anonymous Coward]

France uses nuclear power heavily, Europe in general has invested more in clean energy, and even if electric cars did somehow pollute more they would at least do so outside of the city.

Re:typical ignorant American

[sudon't]

Yeah, I was going to say, we've been on ultra low sulfur diesel for a few years now. Another point worth mentioning is that all trucks in the US have to meet stringent exhaust regulations, so most have some form of exhaust cleaning system. I've seen, in my lifetime, trucks go from belching out big clouds of black smoke, to creating near invisible exhaust.
That said, I don't know where the OP got the idea diesel was cleaner than gasoline.

Re:typical ignorant American

[drinkypoo]

That said, I don't know where the OP got the idea diesel was cleaner than gasoline.

Diesel is still a bit more efficient overall, start to finish. It takes less energy to produce, and you do still get more mileage from a diesel even though TGDIs are closing the gap. They thus produce less CO2/mile, though they do produce more NOx. However, they also release fewer unburned hydrocarbons, because the basic function of a diesel is to run lean all the time (hence the NOx.) They also tend to produce torque at low RPMs, where there's less loss due to friction. All this still arguably adds up to diesels being less polluting than gasoline vehicles, now that we know that the gassers produce just as much soot as the diesels.

The cleanest fuels of which I'm aware overall are butanol and methane. Butanol can be made by bacteria from any organic material, and is a 1:1 replacement for gasoline. The other stuff that comes out of the same process (ethanol and acetone) can be used to adjust octane. Butanol produces less emissions than gasoline when used as a motor fuel. Acetone is already commonly used as an octane booster and to reduce emissions during testing, although it takes quite a bit to make a significant difference. Methane is a common byproduct of decomposition in nature as is, and when you burn a gas like methane or propane in a combustion engine you substantially reduce both emissions and wear not just to the engine parts themselves (you'll never wash the walls of the combustion cylinder with methane or propane) but also to the crankcase lubricant. Since the fuel burns cleaner, the blow-by is cleaner, and the oil lasts longer. With simple and relatively minor hardware changes (mostly the addition of solenoid valves and spray nozzles, plus probably an additional computer module) engines can be made to run on both fuels, including startup.

Where does the methane come from? AIWPS. Ah, we can dream of a world gone sane.

Its not mostly diesel

[augustm]

There is a lot of political pressure in Paris to push out diesel motors, which are often the main source of summer pollution peaks. This
one actually has another origin: (French source) http://www.airparif.asso.fr/ac... .

There is actually a cloud over much of north Europe, not just Paris. The origin is firstly agricultural.
Its mostly ammonium nitrate from spring fertilizer spreading. The second source is wood burning out in the country. Diesel
is the third source in this outbreak.

The real political problem is the impossibility of doing anything against big-agro, not diesel. (Similar problems in France
also occur with water pollution -- impossible to regulate)

Re:Its not mostly diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

The real political problem is the impossibility of doing anything against big-agro, not diesel. (Similar problems in France
also occur with water pollution -- impossible to regulate)

To be fair, big agro is the reason you can eat.

Re:Its not mostly diesel

[pla]

1) Modern diesel engines burn cleaner than gasoline.

2) Modern wood-stoves can produce 1/10th the emissions of your granddad's outdoor wood boiler.

I don't know about agriculture as a source of air pollution, though I know the runoff causes massive damage to aquatic ecosystems.

The bigger problem here, we just have too damned many humans. Not too many cars, not too many woodstoves, not fuel-X vs fuel-Y, not farming-method-P vs farming-method-Q. We don't need emissions controls (well, we do, but I consider that secondart); we need population controls.

Nothing short of that will "fix" our pollution problem, our energy needs, our water needs, our space needs. Our planet just can't handle the size of our species.

Re:Its not mostly diesel

[0123456]

We don't need emissions controls (well, we do, but I consider that secondart); we need population controls.

Your comrades in China already tried that.

First they told women to have more kids, because they needed soldiers to fight the Evil Americans.
Then they realized they were having so many kids that they were going to starve. So they told women to stop having more than one kid.
Now they have a massive imbalance between men and women, and a rapidly ageing population, and are looking at importing tens of millions of immigrants to replace the kids they never had.

Your population control has such a wonderful history of success. But you don't care, because it's the control that matters to you, no the consequences.

Re:Its not mostly diesel

[pla]

But you don't care, because it's the control that matters to you, no the consequences.

Fundamental attribution error, much?

Spelling not your strong point.

[Anonymous Coward]

You bathe in a bath, but that doesn't mean you spell bath with an e.

A phrase that defines "bathe" more fully is "Splash it all over". Anyone who remembers the Old Spice adverts will know why this is appropriate.

So, no, cologne is not an alternative for bathing, it's what you bathe your neck in to make it not a perfume, therefore not gay or faggy for a man.

Re:Spelling not your strong point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Poetic license. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, where, up on a mountain high, the bandito replies to Dobbs' query on where, if they are Federales, their badges are: Badges? Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges.

Do what London does

[Anonymous Coward]

Introduce a congestion charge. Want to drive your car in the middle of a city despite the excellent public transport? Fine, pay us a large amount of money. Maybe engage in a bit of Uber-style surge pricing while they're at it.

Re: Too bad there's so much car ownership there..

[Anonymous Coward]

Does not work in Paris, unless you are in the tiny minority of extremely rich: parking isn't free in Paris except if you own a place (usually acquired with your property)

Banning cars?

[Lumpy]

How about banning all those barely running properly mopeds and scooters? Last time I was there the smell of two cycle engine exhaust was prevalent about every 5th scooter that went by.

Every single scooter I have ever seen yes even the top of the line vespas have horrible engines that blast out a lot of unburned fuel as they are never maintained right. and so far I have yet to see a moped sold that has a Catalytic converter and fuel injection, so even new ones are spewing more smog than 2 cars.

Emissions displacement

[tepples]

EVs are exempt from this ban since they don't emit anything.

Electric vehicles themselves do not emit, but they cause power plants to emit.

Re:Emissions displacement

[PeDRoRist]

About 80% of France's electrical energy comes from nuclear power plants, with fossil at under 10%. So while power plants do technically emit as a whole, the problem is largely mitigated. Now, there's nuclear waste.

Re:Emissions displacement

[mrchaotica]

Electric vehicles themselves do not emit, but they cause power plants to emit.

Except in France, where only about 8% of their electricity comes from fossil fuels.

Re:Emissions displacement

[Anonymous Coward]

France uses mostly nuclear power, so what's the issue?

Re:Emissions displacement

[kuzb]

Nuclear waste isn't really that big a problem if it's contained properly, which it almost always is. We'd be much better off as a planet if we use nuclear as our main power source, and used hydro, geothermal, solar, and wind to help where it's possible.

Coal needs to go. Period.

This doesn't work

[Andy_R]

This was tried in Athens. What actually happens is that 2 car families who have the option no longer take the smaller, less polluting car half the time, and lots of 1 car families buy a really cheap clapped out, much more polluting car to use on alternate days.

Re:This doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

It is an emergency measure for several days only. I doubt people will buy new cars for a temporary law.

Re:This doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading about the same thing being tried in Mexico City as an example of counter productive policy - traffic increased because people started having two cars.

Re:This doesn't work

[Agent0013]

Which the article summary itself mentions happened last year at this time. If I lived there and found this to be a large inconvenience, I would certainly look at getting an older second car just to avoid this stupid law. Thus the rest of the year there are possibly more cars on the road and not less. And on these days of even-odd cars, you will have more than you would have had if people didn't buy a second car. It is called unintended consequences, and it happens a lot when politicians get involved in things.

Reduces trafic by alienating the poor.

[fred911]

Bogota, Colombia has legislated no drive days all year round. Pico placa publishes the last digits in the paper.
  Anyone of wealth just has multiple vehicles.

Re:Reduces trafic by alienating the poor.

[Anonymous Coward]

And people with a one fairly good car, gives it up in turn for 2 crappy ones. Classified ads for cars now must contain the "plate ending in #" so much you know how to pick the ones you need. I told my dad when it started: Just buy one plate 5 numbers away from the other. 1/6, 2/7 and so on. It has been very robust to their numbering restrictions so far.

Greedy indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I second this.

The french are unfortunately very profiteer at time. Whenever a national election comes along, those who have any outstanding trafic tickets wait for the newly elected president to give them a waiver.

How much do you want to bet...

[kuzb]

....Anne's license plate is even?

If this were me, I'd just go get my license plate re-issued.

Riots Set To Begin

[Anonymous Coward]

Better just call-in sick.

why even instead of odd?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the mayor's favourtie car's number plate is odd

Nonproliferation; Fukushima

[tepples]

About 80% of France's electrical energy comes from nuclear power plants

But how many countries other than France could come to claim the same? I thought arms nonproliferation treaties limited which countries could operate nuclear power. And even if not, how can public sentiment get over a little problem called Fukushima?

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I had no idea Texas was so progressive.