Paris To Test Banning SUVs In the City 509
thecarchik writes "Paris may be the first city to experiment with such a policy. Next year, it will begin to test restrictions on vehicles that emit more than a certain amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometer — the measure of a car's contribution to greenhouse gases. An official within the Parisian mayor's office, Denis Baupin, identified older diesel-engined cars and sport-utility vehicles as specific targets of the emissions limit. Residents and travelers have responded by buying thousands of electric cars, including the low-speed fiberglass G-Wiz — despite major safety concerns with the vehicle."
Weather Alert (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, paris/france gets most of its energy from nuclear power. So limited upstream pollution.
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Weather Alert (Score:4, Insightful)
75% is enough to justify the use of the word 'most'. Dude, you really need to get your facts straight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, they must be getting their energy from somewhere, unless France is blacked out. I have been to coal plants, wind farms and hydro plants and I have seen turbines being serviced at each of them, it is just a reality of power generation that a boiler or a cooling tower needs to be cleaned or a turbine or dynamo needs to be repaired from time to time. Unless France has been secretly building coal or hydro stations over the last few years or has been buying an inordinate amount of foreign power, I suspect
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing something.
G-Wiz officially is not a car - it is a quadricycle. There is a number of local manufacturers besides G-wiz and at least one of them electric IIRC. Offficially, quadricycle is limited to 40mph, is under some weight limit (different for electric and petrol), etc. It also does not have to pass most of EU car safety tests.
There is a reason why France is the only country in Europe where the so called quadricicles still sell and which continues writing them into the EU rulebook. It is called Paris (not that other french major cities are much better) traffic. You are not accelerating to Jeremy Clarkson (or 70-es Alain Delon film) speeds any time soon. Similarly, if you are hit you are not spilling out anything on the road anytime soon (especially if you got one of the french ones that actually pass car safety tests) because you are most likely to be hit at sub-10mph speeds.
So besides everything else this is also a subsidy to local manufacturers as most people will not go for G-wiz but for one of the local ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
All the cyclists that ride in my neighborhood think they're invincible.
Re:Weather Alert (Score:4, Informative)
A cyclist is under no such illusion
The cyclists certainly are where I live (Vancouver, Canada). Every day I see helmet-less hipster-cyclists rocketing down sidewalks, running red lights, weaving through traffic, travelling the wrong way down one-way streets and on and on. The latest thing in terms of hipster-cool bicycles are minimalist rides with no gears and no brakes:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3133/3248144604_fdc29f42c7_o.jpg [flickr.com]
While in these parts it's the law that cyclists must wear helmets and obey traffic rules, these laws are generally unenforced.
Re: (Score:3)
"Spill"?
Most modern battery chemistries (excluding lead-acid) are solid. They may produce (and vent) gasses when ruptured, and/or explode, but they don't contain the acidic liquids you may remember from your childhood.
Re:Weather Alert (Score:4, Insightful)
Statistically, every single IC-powered car is guaranteed to emit CO2, NOx, SOx, and some amount of other pollutants including unburned hydrocarbons and metals every single time it goes anyplace.
Statistically, a tiny subset of battery-powered EV cars will experience a collision on any given trip, and a tiny subsubset of those vehicles will experience a leak from the battery as a result of that collision.
So if we want to look at environmental damage, you don't compare a single worst-case-scenario EV trip with a single best-case-scenario IC trip ... unless you are Glenn Beck.
Re: (Score:3)
This is sheer sophistry. Until you have some kind of basic indication that EV1 and EV2 are more than trivial, what you are doing is crude stalling and pure reaction.
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
electric allows for energy source flexibility
with a gas fueled car, when the saudis decide you are paying $5/ gallon so they can send more money to islamic militant causes, you have no choice. with electric, you can get your electricity from coal plants belching acid rain and CO2, yes, but at least you are only funding mining barons in west virginia. but your electricity can also be from nuclear, or solar, or hydroelectric, or geothermal, or tidal, or wind... or whatever. the whole point being, you can still drive the same car, you have energy independence, as an individual, and as a society. you don't have to worry what gas prices will be in 2011 as demand rises and supplies get deeper and deeper. you don't have to worry about soccer moms in SUVs, when they fill their fuel tanks, funding al qaeda or hugo chavez or russian neoimperialism or.. shiver... canada (relax canucks, its just a dumb joke)
electric cars are just being smart and planning for the future. not that planning for the future is a concept many people are very familiar with. change makes people uncomfortable. well, brazil, and india and china are not shrinking economies, and the global economy is recovering. remember fuel prices before the economic collapse in 2008? if you don't you'll soon get a nasty reminder. buy an electric car now. you've been amply warned, don't be dumb
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Informative)
with a gas fueled car, when the saudis decide you are paying $5/ gallon so they can send more money to islamic militant causes, you have no choice.
If you're American, surely you mean 'when the Canadians decide you are paying $5/gallon so they can send more money to hockey teams and French speaking welfare cases'?
You do realise that America gets twice as much oil from Canada as from Saudi, right?
No, I guess not.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you stopped reading that paragraph you quoted before you got to the last line eh?
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realise that America gets twice as much oil from Canada as from Saudi, right?
Since oil is pretty much fungible, it really doesn't matter where "we" get it from, we still are contributing to the world-wide demand for oil which keeps the money flowing to the middle-east. In other words, if the US didn't get oil from Canada, current direct buyers of Saudi oil would be able to buy from Canada instead.
Re:Weather Alert (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is actually irrelevant to the price of oil. OPEC sets pricing (through setting production directly, which controls the supply directly which controls the pricing indirectly). Canada can either follow that pricing or sell the oil well below market pricing, losing money just to make the US happy. I don't like Scott Adams, but his comment (via Dogbert) regarding the definition of "fungible" was apropos.
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html [doe.gov]
Sneak peak:
The top five sources of US crude oil imports for September were Canada (1,936 thousand barrels per day), Nigeria (1,107 thousand barrels per day), Mexico (1,098 thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1,082 thousand barrels per day), and Venezuela (919 thousand barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (422 thousand barrels per day), Angola (404 thousand barrels per day), Algeria (366 thousand barrels per day), Colombia (308 thousand barrels per day), and Russia (236 thousand barrels per day).
September 2010 Import Highlights: Released November 29, 2010
Re: (Score:3)
Wiki sez, 'The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is a cartel of twelve developing countries made up of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela."
So run the numbers again, in your list Nigeria, SA, and Venezuela are listed, combined they make up. . . 3.108 Million barrels a day, which is a fair site more than Canada and since OPEC sets its price collectively and have 79% of reserves so, sure, SA doesn't provide
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
I've sussed it. That chart lists the OPEC countries separately to make them look smaller. If you add up the OPEC countries it comes to way more than Canada and Mexico combined (about 33% more).
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Because
1) America basically gets all of our oil because they are a major consumer which is geographically very close. So that figure represents close to 100% of our production.
2) Saudi on the hand is half way round the world and america *still* gets a lot of oil from them. There total production is sent to europe, china, india and the rest of the world.
3) The oil sands are very costly to extract from compared to Saudi oil fields.
Also it doesn't really matter where America technically gets it's oil from. Oil is a global commodity traded on a vast scale and even if America imports zero barrels of oil from the Saudi's they will still be able to set the price. For example if the Saudi's cut their exports to China and Europe what will happen? Those consumers will start buying Canadian oil and the price goes up and Saudi makes more money for militants. America needs to use less oil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
IT's not really about taxing the rich, it's about taxing appropriate to the wealth distribution. when 90% of all the money is owned by less then 10% of the population,That population must pay a higher income tax in order to maintain a balanced society.
The 'taxing the rich' mantra was created by a very wealthy group so they don't have to pay there share of society.
When talking about axes, please don't for get payroll tax. right now, in overall taxes, the wealthy do not bay a balanced share.
For the simple min
Re: (Score:3)
Horseshit. Utter, complete, indefensible horseshit.
Federal highway system. Aid to states. Port spending. The list is damn near endless (which is a cause of concern, of course).
And for that matter, military spending is one of the *least* stimulatory things the federal government spends money on.
Re: (Score:3)
Rich people keep vast amounts of wealth locked away in their personal savings/investments. Poor people spend just about everything that they make.
I'm no economist, so I have no idea what other factors are relevant.
When you say 'wealth locked away in savings and investments' it makes it sound like rich people keep their money in a cave under the mansion. Investments and savings aren't "locked away" - it's money as capital. Money spent in a store on purchases isn't the cause of economic growth; it's the end result. Someone needed to combine capital (AKA that savings and investments you deride as locked away) with labor (AKA someone who isn't rich but wants a job) to make the product in the first place to have someth
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not surprisingly, the biggest Canadian producer is the province of Alberta, which accounts for two-thirds of Canada’s production. Saskatchewan is next at roughly 18 per cent, and Newfoundland produces 13 per cent with its off-shore resources. Manitoba, Ontario, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories round out Canadian output with a combined share representing 2.8 per cent of production. However, around 66 per cent of Canada’s oil production is not destined for Canadians. It goes almost e
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Funny)
Your shift key doesn't fund terrorists. It's OK to use it.
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Informative)
The big issue is that Paris sits in a river basin. On days without enough wind, the smog just sits over the city. It's pretty gnarly. Moving the pollution anywhere else is a big win because it becomes less localized, and impacts less people.
Re:Weather Alert (Score:5, Interesting)
How much carbon ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Over the lifetime of the car, not much.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Over the lifetime of the car, not much.
We're not talking about people scrapping their fifteen year old SUV and buying a crappy 'city car', but having to buy a second car to drive in the city if they're not allowed to drive their SUV there.
Re: (Score:2)
... will producing all those additional 'city cars' people will need to buy consume?
I think the most restricting factor will be the parking space for the residents of Paris - I imagine one can't afford to own multiple cars in Paris for this reason.
New business idea: "long-term-parking combined with rent/switch between SUV/small-car" on the outskirts of Paris: SUV-owners visiting Paris will let their SUV in parking and rent a small car, residents of Paris will park their small car and rent and SUV when needed.
This as a transition phase to a more extended "car pooling/sharing" scheme - I r
Re:How much carbon ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you live in Paris, you don't *need* a car, not now, not *ever*.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does your definition of "you" include plumbers, gardeners, families with more than one small child per adult, handicapped, people with regular commute outside main train/bus routes?
Re:How much carbon ... (Score:5, Informative)
Regular commute outside the main train/bus routes?? Have you *ever* been to Paris? :P You'd be hard pressed to find a route not covered by metro or RER, not to mention buses..
Re:How much carbon ... (Score:5, Informative)
When how is that a problem?
They can do like lot of people do: They can use their car to reach the nearest train station and from there, use trains/RER/subways/buses etc. TFA doesn't state that SUV will be banned outside of Paris too.
On a side note, I live near Paris, I work in Paris. I don't have a car, and that's fine.
I'm not saying that car is bad. When you have to move furniture, or stuff, or in some other situations, car might actually be the wise choice.
But, from my experience, that's not how it's used. There are like 9 out of 10 cars used for only driving 1 person. And that's sad. I'm breathing this air.
So when it comes to diminution pollution, i'm all for it.
Re:How much carbon ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does your definition of "you" include plumbers, gardeners, families with more than one small child per adult, handicapped, people with regular commute outside main train/bus routes?
Sorry, but there are lots of good station wagons/estate cars that the handicapped and big families use. They don't drive SUVs. They never needed and paid the money for that pile of metal with storage capacity equalling the former mentioned cars. Gardeners and plumbers drive small vans or station wagons, both yield a better price/milage for the storage they can hold.
People who already need a car and own one usually live outside town and park and switch to the metro before they get sucked in the traffic jam (You don't want to appear at random times for work, do you?). They usually own a small car or, if they have the money, a sports car. There is no room in the city you can't reach by public transport.
For handicapped (they have a permit anyway) the renault kangoo with built in lift is one of the cars of choice. But in the end I think that the navigation systems need to be fixed. The short route isn't always the best one. I know smaller towns with a motorway around, but the main street is still considered the best way for transit (same speed limits). They just have to deal with less lanes, traffic lights and streetcars (Not to mention second line parking and so on) in town. Somebody should tune the little gadgets to stay out of the city if the target isn't in it.
Re: (Score:3)
The definition of "you" is a generalization. He meant most people.
Oh, and by the way, plumbers, gardeners, families with more than one small child per adult, handicapped, and people that commute outside main train/bus routes don't need an SUV. There are alternatives that can do the job better, with less pollution and higher return on money spent on fuel.
Remember, Europe is not the same as US.
And a final question - have you ever been to Paris and experienced the traveling in the city?
Not new. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not new. (Score:4, Funny)
Ok. Done. It cost me nothing other than my fuel. I parked for free and paid no taxes.
Oh, wait. You didn't mean 'anytime' when you said anytime. You meant Monday to Friday between certain times. :p
Re: (Score:2)
but those make some sense to rednecks and soccer moms, i think any big cars should require a different permit only for people with that many kids (suvs) or people who need it for their job(trucks) then they should lose their pivillages on the first volasoin
Re:Not new. (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be easy enough to do; require everyone who drives a vehicle over a certain size to hold a CDL, just like semi drivers do. A CDL isn't all that expensive to get in most places, but it takes a fair amount of skill -- you have to really prove that you can handle a vehicle that size. People who need a large vehicle for their work would get it, and there would be a few egotistical dickheads who would go to the trouble because they really, really want to drive a giant deathtank back and forth the work and the grocery store, but I guarantee you that the number of these monsters clogging up city streets would go way down.
Politically infeasible, of course, but I can dream.
Re: (Score:3)
that's just big BS, small cars can even polute more than a big SUV, especially when we are talking about old cars.. for instance an old mini cooper or citroen deuxchevoux (or whatever that old ugly duck car is called) polutes more than my Jeep, especially when I'm driving on LPG (hell my jeep on LPG even polutes less than an average mercedes)..
If they plan on banning SUV's then they should also ban old cars which polute just as much...
Which is why, if you'd RTFA or even the summary, you'd see that this applies not based on the size of your vehicle but on its expected overall pollution, as approximated by C02 emissions. Your point is valid and the law is already being crafted to explicitly address it.
Happy now?
Re:Not new. (Score:4, Interesting)
There are more and less efficient engine designs and(over short distances, if you don't count upstream emissions) even a main battle tank could emit zero co2 if it packed enough batteries; but, on average, this is basically going to target old cars(more likely to be noisy, lax on assorted noxious emissions) and large cars(more metal rolling, more energy needed. Period.)
It is an interesting quirk of French politics that you would bring up the co2 thing to make such a ban more palatable; but the effects of this proposal seem pretty much identical to most other schemes aimed at making dense cities more pleasant and less congested: all of them target big, loud, and noxious vehicles, through a mixture of either Orwellian cameras(Hi London!), landscaping changes aimed at 'pedestrianizing' the city, or just plain legal fiat backed by traffic cops.
In general, I get the impression that(at least among city dwellers, suburbanites commuting in are rather the target) such schemes are reasonably popular. Above a certain density, you just get smog-huffing gridlock that tends to grind out the vibrant street-level life of a city. Culling the more obnoxious vehicles, and replacing them with some mixture of better walkability, public transit, and smaller vehicles(sometimes as part of zipcar-like arrangements), tends to bring some of the charm back, and isn't too inconvenient in very high density areas. Trying to be the suburbs, when you are 10x or more as dense, just doesn't scale very well. Cities reacting against this trend are fairly common, though generally not by hitting co2 related metrics...
Re:Not new. (Score:5, Informative)
Just as Italians would use the word "Londra" for London, using "Firenze" instead of "Florence" when writing English is both incorrect and pretentious.
so i assume it's very pretentious to not be a native english speaker?
I'm sorry that we don't know every single english name of towns around the world, i would have also used Firenze while writing english, since that's the only name i know for that town.
G-Wiz (Score:3, Informative)
That's a completely useless article. There's basically no meaningful information until a footnote at the end that it's a rebadged, Indian made Reva.
Re:G-Wiz (Score:5, Funny)
The author notes he is also the G-Wiz riders club something or other.
I remember the Reva's having a very interesting crash test video and of course the G-Wiz shares the same fate.
However, TopGear managed to get a slightly more humorous review of the G-Wiz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtGp8Sha_mA [youtube.com]
As obnoxious as I find SUVs... (Score:2)
I don't think this is a good idea. For example, I live in the Financial District of San Francisco, and find it obnoxious that some of my coworkers insist on commuting to work in their SUVs every day when BART runs trains to a stop two blocks from my office every 5 minutes during rush hour. On the other hand, I concede that there may be some circumstances where driving a large vehicle into the city might be justified. Why bar someone from bringing an SUV with six people in it, but permit someone to drive a s
Re: (Score:3)
Why bar someone from bringing an SUV with six people in it, but permit someone to drive a slightly smaller vehicle carrying only one person?
The thing that I found striking in TFA: the ban mentions "amount of CO2 per kilometer" only not "per km and per person transported". Like what? The public transportation in Paris doesn't use buses powered by Diesel engines?
And how many SUV's carry 6 people to work? (Score:5, Informative)
Really, show me ONE SUV that actually uses its space for the work commute. Oh okay, so you found one in ALL of France, big whoop. But I think that Americans just can't grasp the problem. Europe is SMALLER en the cities are just not designed with big cars in mind. For that matter most Europeans just don't get the American road system. The two areas work at a totally different scale. For instance, my own commute takes about 45 minutes... by bicycle, car OR train. Really. The travel time is NOT in the distance but in the waiting. The car gets stuck in all kinds of traffic jams, the train suffers delays on one of the most crowded rail networks in the world and of course you got to get to and from the train station by a bus service that doesn't connect and the bicycle... actually that one is pretty good a very straight line with just one big pothole with no lights around it.
And SUV's are not just another car. Forget for a moment the type of driver inside of them who tend to be major assholes, two SUV's passing each other in a narrow street, and old european cities are nothing but narrow streets, and the cars typically slow down to pass each other. They take just that bit more space say a meter in a bumper to bumper traffic jams. 4 SUV's and you could have fitted a whole extra car in the extra space taken by a SUV. Parking is the same. The drivers feel safer so take more risks, not only does this make the risk similar again but the death toll on pedestrians and cyclist increases thanks to the SUV driver.
London had the congestion charging and despite that fact that it was universally hated (or so the popular press tell us) it worked. The difference is staggering. But it wasn't popular. ANY law will have opponents. If you try to find a way to get anything done that won't upset anyone, you will never get anything done and THAT will REALLY upset people.
You just want an excuse, because ONE SUV was once found to actually have a full load for a work commute, ALL SUV's should be allowed to drive with one person in congested city centers totally unfit for such large cars. NIMBY must be your middle name.
Oh and a congestion tax would also hit low pollution vehicles. So if I drive a small electric car filled with passengers I get to pay the same as a SUV with just the driver. SMART!
Re: (Score:3)
I take it you don't live in a big european city.
Bumpers (Score:3)
Drivers in Paris park bumper to bumper and the way to get out of a parking spot is to ram the cars in front and behind of you until you have space to pull out. They drive these little light cars and the bumper bars (US people would say fenders) are all scuffed. My car has a tow bar so you couldn't do that but nobody where I went in Paris seems to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't a French carmaker address this by having a set of wheels that would drop down, shoulder the vehicle's weight, and allow the car to move sideways? I remember this because it was a relatively simple way to address parallel parking, as opposed to having a computer do it for you. This way, instead of playing the ramming game, it was a simple manner of scooting out in the street, retracting the wheels and driving off.
Re: (Score:2)
The ramming game appears to work well enough.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we call those bumpers as well. The fender is the body panel that wraps around the wheel well [wikipedia.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Drivers in Paris park bumper to bumper and the way to get out of a parking spot is to ram the cars in front and behind of you until you have space to pull out. They drive these little light cars and the bumper bars (US people would say fenders) are all scuffed. My car has a tow bar so you couldn't do that but nobody where I went in Paris seems to use them.
Just one of the reasons why in most European countries the words "inconsiderate prick" are synonymous with "French driver".
My French colleagues assume me that the words "inconsiderate prick" are synonymous with "Parisian driver".
Re: (Score:2)
Most drivers in Paris knows how to park well without bumping, those who do that are mostly tourists (were you one of them ?) and old men who should'nt drive (i live there)
I never drove in Paris. In fact I have been driving in Australia for so long that the mere thought of driving on the right gives me the horrors.
Bad Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
CO2 per kilometer is a horrible metric. No biodiesel for them, then. It sounds like the point of this is to limit greenhouse gas emissions, but all it will really do is reduce fuel consumption and move the CO2 emission to other areas. That's what would happen in the US at least. We don't have as much nuclear power, and tend to consume more oil-based plastic goods than Europeans. Regardless, it's easy for well-intentioned regulations to have counterproductive effects.
Take this as an example. I have a 2.5 ton diesel truck that is over 40 years old. It gets pretty terrible gas mileage. But it's entirely possible that it will last another 40 years. I use it once every six months or so on average. I could buy a new truck. Buying a new truck would mean thirty thousand dollars worth of CO2-intensive manufacturing, steel parts and such. The new truck wouldn't last as long, and would need to be replaced probably within the next 20 years.
I could rent a truck instead. On average, that would cost about the same as the truck I already have, possibly more. Instead of driving directly to where I want to go, I would have to drive to the truck rental store, drive to where I want to go, drive home, drive back to the truck rental store, and then drive back home. And if I rent a truck, the proceeds would likely go to some employees and shareholders who use the money to increase their consumption of goods, food, gasoline and electricity all produced by emitting CO2 as well. So the net result is similar if not more CO2 usage.
Central economic planning is harder than it might seem.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:5, Informative)
The vast majority of CO2 emissions from cars come from driving them, not manufacturing them.
See for instance page 4 of this report:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf [pacinst.org]
herd immunity. (Score:3)
despite major safety concerns with the vehicle.
if everyone's driving around in GWizes, Yarises, and Smart ForTwos, what safety problem?
Excellent ... (Score:2)
Ban drive thru restaurants while you're at it (Score:2)
Yes, well sorta (Score:3)
They have cunnincly replicated the drive-thru setup but when the little window opens a French man shoots you through the head, scoops out your liver and turns it into pate. It was widely protested in the EU as inhumane until it was pointed out only the Touristus Americanus falls into this trap. The American ambassador was asked for comments but he replied he couldn't answer the phone now because he was in the line at a drive-thru and hasn't been heard from since.
Slashdot wishes it to be known that is does
Re: (Score:3)
Posting from the UK. What the heck is a drive thru restaurant?
It's like a drive thru liquor store [virtualtourist.com] but it sells food. Yeah, not as much fun, I agree...
A very strange piece of news (Score:5, Informative)
As a French man, reading the news every day, and living quite close to Paris, I've never heard about such a ban. neither have I heard about "thousands of electric vehicles" being suddenly bought by Paris' residents. Right now, French people are more interested in the end of the "prime à la casse", which is a financial bonus given for buying low emission vehicles, but we're talking gas powered cars, electric cars are nowhere to be seen on french roads and cities.
Paris planned innovation is a system of shared self-service cars (probably electric), which can be used for a few hours for a moderate cost, similar to what has existed for years for bicycles ('vélib', this has been a major success for Paris' mayor).
Safety (Score:4, Interesting)
The safety issue really concerns me. I don't want people being forced by legislation to buy smaller, weaker cars, for city driving, because most people can only afford one car so they'll also be taking those same small, weak cars out on fast roads.
I'm a news photographer and I often attend accident scenes. As a rule, whenever there is an SUV involved, the occupants of the SUV survive and the occupants of the car _all_ die.
Renault Megane vs Range Rover. Both people in the Megane killed. Minor injuries in the Range Rover.
http://www.meejahor.com/wp-content/uploads/FatalcollisiononB9006CantraywoodtoCroyro_A156/FatalcollisionB9006CantraywoodtoCroyroad2.jpg [meejahor.com]
Vauxhall Corsa vs Mitsubishi Shogun. Both people in the Corsa killed. Injuries in the Shogun.
http://www.meejahor.com/wp-content/uploads/Newspaperphotosfromthelastfewmonths_CD67/A9Dalwhinniefatalcollision5of8.jpg [meejahor.com]
Vauxhall Astra vs Mitsubishi Shogun. All three people in the Astra killed. Minor injuries in the Shogun.
http://www.meejahor.com/wp-content/uploads/818q3025.jpg [meejahor.com]
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
That can be considered as case for banning SUVs, right?
If not for the SUV, the other car occupants would not have died, maybe.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
That is some people's view. I don't agree.
People should be able to choose the vehicle they want to keep their family safe.
While it is unavoidable that the larger, more powerful SUVs will be too expensive for some people, what I condemn is any move by the _state_ to price people out of the SUV market based on relatively trivial matters such as CO2 emissions.
Rich people will still be able to buy, tax and insure their SUVs, while poorer people will be more likely to be limited to smaller, weaker cars that will come off worse in a crash.
Then I want to be able to put a turret with a couple of machine guns, connected to a sensor that detects when a SUV approachs with its owner more concerned about cellphone/makeup/kids/whatever that about traffic (because if he gets in a crash, I will get the worse part of it).
After all, I should be able to chose the vehicle I want to keep my family (and myself, don't forget about myself) safe.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
People should be able to choose the vehicle they want to keep their family safe.
Yep the result of which is why I hate some Americans. The idea of I will buy the biggest bloody tank I can find and fuck anything on the road that gets in my way is disgusting. Here's a neat idea, if everyone has the fear of death behind the wheel maybe there would be less drunk drivers doing 100 in a 50 zone while talking on the mobile phone. Have you ever seen a bicycle enthusiast in a car pass a cyclist without leaving 1m gap? Or a recent example of mine, when it's pissing down so much that you can't see 10m ahead of you and half the traffic is driving with it's hazards on some impatient dick with a SUV and the worlds biggest bullbar on the front decides to overtake without having a lane to do so. I've seen that and I would have been pissed if I was the first firstaider on the scene in that weather. I would have probably just got out and punched the SUV driver.
If you take away people's safety blanket they may actually put a bit of thought into their fucking driving.
Parent is right. No one is forcing you to buy the G-Whiz, they are saying that the new rules will ban a lot of SUVs in the city, a very good thing for pedestrians and other motorists. Small also doesn't mean unsafe. I've seen an A class merc get hit by an SUV and roll. The driver got out on foot after the car came to a halt with all limbs intact, slightly shaken.
You may sense the attitude here. Well as someone who was hit by a reversing SUV because soccer mommy bought a car that she couldn't see out of just to keep her little shitty kid safe, let me tell you the sooner we can take the keys away from people who buy SUVs for anything other than "sports" or "utility" the fucking better.
Re: (Score:3)
Well you have some good points and some bad points.
First of all, you're absolutely right that safer vehicles breed less safe driving. It's a well-known, well-measured effect that needs to be considered every time a new safety device is considered.
That said, the idea that all accidents can be avoided with better driving is just crap. People screw up. I generally consider myself a pretty careful driver and I have had my share of mistakes. Anyone who is a safe driver should be able to identify many instances w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that shit drivers do that ten times as often, and they probably aren't even aware of it.
Last week I had some idiot nearly[1] hit me on a pedestrian crossing who was using his blackberry. Now the crossing was green, which means the light he'd gone through had been red for a few seconds
Re: (Score:3)
Mutually ensured destruction ... WITH CARS!!! ;)
There's a reason French are so fond of nuclear energy
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've seen two fatal road accidents, and one injury accident in the last ten years. All three involved children, all three involved SUVs.
In the case of the two fatalities, the SUV driver was confident that the power and weight of their vehicle would let them do things that other road users weren't risking; it turns out that even a 3-ton SUV is going to lose against a 40-odd ton truck.
In the case of the injury, it was even simpler; the kid did something stupid (ran in front of their parent's vehicle, not
Re: (Score:3)
You were doing so well up to there. I despair, I really do.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Interesting)
So ... the answer is, what? Everybody should drive an SUV? Then the soccer moms will want something bigger because they want to be 'safer than the other guy'?
PS: That's only impacts with other vehicles, overall SUVs are not any safer, any kind of swerving or loss of concentration is much more likely to kill you in an SUV.
"According to NHTSA data, SUV's and pickups are at a disadvantage in single-vehicle accidents (such as when the driver falls asleep, or loses control swerving around a deer), which comprise 43% of fatal accidents, with more than double the chance of rolling over. This risk relates closely to overall US motor vehicle fatality data, showing that SUVs and pickups generally have a higher fatality rate than cars of the same manufacturer"
source [wikipedia.org]
Electric Mail Wagons In Paris -- 1905 (Score:5, Informative)
From Popular Mechanics magazine, January 1905 [google.com], p. 119:
Many of the mail wagons in Paris are now electric-propelled vehicles, weighing 4,200 pounds, and carry a load of 1,100 pounds of mail. Storage batteries weighing 1,320 pounds furnish current sufficient to last for a 37-mile trip. The Motor Age says the new wagons carry twice as much mail as the former horse-drawn vehicles and travel much faster.
In 5 years of living in Paris (Score:3)
..as a 5+ year resident of paris, I recall seeing a Hummer twice - and it was the same one.
Paris has never been a city of big cars, simply because you can't drive them - the streets are too narrow, parking becomes completely impossible, and they're generally not at all favoured as cars.
While it's true there's a creep of luxury 'smaller' 4WD (Porche Cayenne etc) - being new, they're generally more efficent than the 2-stroke mopeds buzzing around, for example.
Such a ban is as much to facilitate traffic flow than save the environment, I believe.
(And PS: there hasn't been an 'rush of electric car purchases' - smaller cars have always been popular.)
Inaccurate Summary (Score:3)
Residents and travelers have responded by buying thousands of electric cars, including the low-speed fiberglass G-Wiz — despite major safety concerns with the vehicle."
No, residents have not responded by buying thousands of electric cars, because this decision is NEW.
Instead, french people have bought thousands of electric cars, because there is a tax gift of 1500 euros when you replace your old vehicle with a new electric or hybrid one.
This tax reduction will disappear on the 1st of January 2011, that's why people rush to buy a new car, especially in Paris.
BTW, using a SUV in Paris is a crazy idea, since it's perceived as a lack of respect for other drivers. Streets in Paris are very small, parking places are very difficult to find for normal vehicles, and impossible for larger ones.
Possessing a SUV is like saying: hey, I've got a ton of money, since my car will suck a lot of gas, and I have my own private parking for both my work and my home.
Driving in Paris requires a lot of attention and energy, since it's very tiring, and drivers are very nervous, and are not friendly when driving.
Once again, direct action gets the goods (Score:3)
In 2005 a clandestine group known as Les Dégonflés, The Deflated, began a campaign of sabotage [commondreams.org] against SUVs in the City.
"Under cover of night, Marrant's troops target Jeep Cherokees, Porsche Cayennes and other four-wheel-drive vehicles parked on the tree-lined avenues and cobblestoned lanes of wealthy neighborhoods. The eco-guerrillas deflate tires without damaging them, smear doors with mud and paste handbills on windshields proclaiming that the vehicles are dangerous, polluting behemoths that do not belong in the city."
And now, far from criminalizing their behavior, the government of the City is going to ratify it. Lessons to be learned, here: Direct Action gets the goods.
Require Truck Licenses (Score:5, Insightful)
SUVs are trucks. They get truck tax breaks, truck emissions loopholes, and they're the big, powerful cars we call trucks. But somehow they do not require the truck license to drive them, which requires taking a different test for handling bigger, more powerful cars in some trickier maneuvers.
If all those soccer moms, yuppies and other people driving a car too big for them had to get a truck license instead of the drivers license they already got in high school, most of them would not. And there would be a whole lot less SUVs driving around. And most of their drivers, when they cut us off, would at least have the skills to do so more safely.
Such a simple change: require the truck license to drive the truck. Saving lives and sanity, not to mention fuel supplies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When I learned to ski my dad taught to point a ski pole at anybody claiming to be out of control while mowing me down. I have used it several times and they always learn to steer immediately.
Along these lines my favourite safety feature for cars is a spike attached at one end to the front bumper and at the other end emerging from the steering column. Hit anything and the driver gets skewered.
Think it will catch on?
Re: (Score:3)
When some nub is ruining your line, of course you're going to yell anything to make them move, and your fun continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok.. ban the SUV's. But can somebody please do something about all the damn cigaarette smoke?
;) Huh? The ciggies are carbon-neutral (obtained from plants), thus more env friendly than even a G-Wiz. This letting aside the taxes/accises collected from smokers far exceeds the taxes on gasoline/roads. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Gather fifty smokers, shove them in a garage, and tell them to chain smoke for twenty minutes. In another garage, turn on a gasoline-powered car and leave it running for twenty minutes. Which would you rather enter?
Are the 50 smoker's French? If so I might opt for the carbon monoxide poisoning.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As for France, the SUV thing could be internal protection for a bump to a new class of French car. You pay cash for your clunkers right to be in the city or pay cash for a new car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, everything is not about America. As shoking as it may be to you, most of the time, America is not even thought about when making a decision.
Re:What class of SUV? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What class of SUV? (Score:4, Informative)
And no, there isn't any rush for electric car yet here, there are some Toyota Pryus Hybrids, mainly cabs, nothing much.
sources : leparisien.fr [googleusercontent.com], AFP [google.fr]
Re:What class of SUV? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Wikipedia, the CR-V uses about 11 L/100 km. How is that better than most cars? I'm not sure I want to what kind of monster you're driving around in if you consider that good...
Misleading article (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
IMHO, this is more of a PR stunt against American culture .
What a load of self absorbed crap.
The qualification factors are CO2 emissions per mile. As they should be. Not car shape. You think US invented the SUV? No just the dumb and incongruent name (I presume).
Don't get me wrong the shape and size are both important factors in European annoyance at there rise in popularity in our narrow overcrowded streets.
They also get refered to as Chelsea Tractors. I've lived in Chelsea. You're right to ask who would want to ride a huge SUV there. Sadly the answer is Every dum
Re: (Score:3)
So how does this work?
If a SUV makes it through a blockcade, do they reconsider the ban?
Not knowing French politics; but I would assume the test will last until the next general election. If polls go badly, it will get revoked before the next election.
Re: (Score:3)
But it does:
a) reduce the number of things to collide with, and
b) reduce the number of things that will collide with you and drive like they have right of way all the time.