Paris may ban SUVs - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about sports cars, aeroplanes, ships, rockets etc.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13670228
The SUV, particularly in an urban setting, adds absolutely nothing over a smaller car. It is an entirely frivolous status symbol which is needlessly more expensive, polluting and fuel-consuming. It is no more than an object of licence, one which is detrimental to the person and the nation, and its acceptance as a sort of God-given right in the United States despite this is also a sign of misplaced priorities, to not say decadence.
User avatar
By Dave
#13670270
Just because it adds nothing you think is important doesn't mean it adds nothing other people are important. You haven't actually responded to any of my points.


Recently I moved my main residence to the city from the suburbs. I had to keep my office in the suburbs for a week due to telephone line issue, so I didn't have a U-Haul moving truck when I moved my office nor did I wish to pay a rental fee again. I have a sedan, and my desk wouldn't fit in it (even disassembled). What did I do? I called a friend who owns an eight-passenger SUV, and he helped me move it. If a larger group of us goes on a road trip, his SUV is usually involved. While it's true there are other ways to satisfy goals like these, an SUV makes it pretty convenient.

SUVs are also extremely handy for inclement weather. In North America, everyone who lives north of the Mason-Dixie line can expect to deal with major snowstorms during the winter. Even if you live in an area with good snow removal services, there are some times you can only drive if you own a vehicle with high ground clearance. Sometimes the vehicle might even need four-wheel drive and high weight. Living in the city can even increase your need for this if you are someone who has to drive, because cities often have worse snow removal than suburbs.

You have reiterated your point about SUVs consuming more fuel and causing more pollution, meaning you paid no attention to my point about crossovers. Let's take the Ford Motor Company as an example then. The Ford Ecape shares, roughly, a platform with the Ford Fusion sedan. The standard Escape gets 23/28 miles per gallon, the hybrid gets 34/31. The Fusion gets 23/33 with the normal engine and 41/36 with the hybrid. Not a big difference, and the Escape costs less than $2,000 more. You can find numerous sedans and even coupes which get much worse fuel economy than the Escape.

A lot has changed in the auto market since 2000, and invectives against SUVs no longer have a lot of merit. The kind of fuel-guzzling truck based SUVs that dominated the market before have seen their sales decline by around 90%, because cross-overs offer most of what most consumers want out of SUVs at a lower price to buy and operate.

If you want to weigh in against car dependency in general, that's fine but also a different story.

I can't agree with your complaints about status symbols. Humans are social pack animals who compete both within groups and between groups on the basis of status. Your own political opinions signal higher social status within the groups you travel, for example.
By Pants-of-dog
#13670373
Dave wrote:Recently I moved my main residence to the city from the suburbs. I had to keep my office in the suburbs for a week due to telephone line issue, so I didn't have a U-Haul moving truck when I moved my office nor did I wish to pay a rental fee again. I have a sedan, and my desk wouldn't fit in it (even disassembled). What did I do? I called a friend who owns an eight-passenger SUV, and he helped me move it. If a larger group of us goes on a road trip, his SUV is usually involved. While it's true there are other ways to satisfy goals like these, an SUV makes it pretty convenient.


A ban on SUVs in the city core would not affect people driving in the suburbs or making trips out of town. Moving in or into the city (not exactly common) would be more convenient with a truck. At this point, one could rent a truck or hire a moving company. It is not as convenient as having your friend drive you around in his SUV, but sometimes people have to sacrifice convenience so that others do not have to deal with harmful levels of pollution.

Dave wrote:SUVs are also extremely handy for inclement weather. In North America, everyone who lives north of the Mason-Dixie line can expect to deal with major snowstorms during the winter. Even if you live in an area with good snow removal services, there are some times you can only drive if you own a vehicle with high ground clearance. Sometimes the vehicle might even need four-wheel drive and high weight. Living in the city can even increase your need for this if you are someone who has to drive, because cities often have worse snow removal than suburbs.


The climate in Paris is not so harsh as to require SUVs.

Dave wrote:You have reiterated your point about SUVs consuming more fuel and causing more pollution, meaning you paid no attention to my point about crossovers. Let's take the Ford Motor Company as an example then. The Ford Ecape shares, roughly, a platform with the Ford Fusion sedan. The standard Escape gets 23/28 miles per gallon, the hybrid gets 34/31. The Fusion gets 23/33 with the normal engine and 41/36 with the hybrid. Not a big difference, and the Escape costs less than $2,000 more. You can find numerous sedans and even coupes which get much worse fuel economy than the Escape.


If you read the article ( http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01 ... n-s-u-v-s/ ), you will notice that they mention that it is unlikely they will enact a blanket ban in Paris for the cross-over reason you mentioned.

Dave wrote:A lot has changed in the auto market since 2000, and invectives against SUVs no longer have a lot of merit. The kind of fuel-guzzling truck based SUVs that dominated the market before have seen their sales decline by around 90%, because cross-overs offer most of what most consumers want out of SUVs at a lower price to buy and operate.


This is also mentioned. The legislation is not actually aimed at SUVs but all vehicles that add to congestion and pollution.
By grassroots1
#13670416
Material consumption relates to material standard of living, so politicians who propose reducing this tend not to be popular with middle class voters. It scores points with ideologues who hate the middle-class lifestyle, however. Achieving something like energy independence takes very long-term planning and significant (political) risk-taking, so of course politicians in a typical liberal democratic country don't seriously strive for it


What is "middle-class?" Who are the ideologues and where do you think they come from if not the middle class?

I agree with you that there are situations where people need to drive these cars, in bad weather, in rough terrain, etc. However that doesn't mean that this ban is misguided. There is a tendency to buy these cars regardless of need, in the inner city, where their 4WD is never turned on once. That is a tendency which needs to be fought against, and I think a ban on SUVs in Paris is a good way to do that. I feel sorry for the poor country folk who happen to drive into Paris in their family car, and get ticketed. However that will be the exception and not the rule.

These SUVs that have more fuel efficiency are a positive step, but the trend still exists, and in all likelihood these tiny SUVs could have even better fuel efficiency and probably be safer if they had a lower profile.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13670424
Dave wrote:If you want to extend the argument to all automobiles (like Qatz), then go ahead. Otherwise I think it's just an example of class snobbery.

SUVs and really wide vehicles present even greater dangers to non-drivers than narrow, low vehicles.

SUVs - because they are more brick-like, are much more fatal for pedestrians or cyclists in collisions.

And wide vehicles make sharing the road very dangerous for other users.

That being said, Dave is right that all our "personal vehicles" are toxic tributes to predatory culture.
User avatar
By Dave
#13670489
Pants-of-dog wrote:[...]
This is also mentioned. The legislation is not actually aimed at SUVs but all vehicles that add to congestion and pollution.

Thanks for your post, but my post was addressing Ombrageaux and not the proposed legislation.

grassroots1 wrote:What is "middle-class?" Who are the ideologues and where do you think they come from if not the middle class?

A middle class lifestyle in North America means a home in the suburbs with a family, convenient appliances, and a car or two. It's a pretty convenient and safe lifestyle conducive to raising a family, but some people have an axe to grind against it.

The ideologues are largely left-liberals from upper middle class backgrounds. For them bucolic suburbia represents white bread middle America, which for some reason they hate and call "sheltered". Usually they do not have families. Apparently life is only "real" if you have a horrible childhood. For some reason, living in some yuppie, gentrified downtown neighborhood and spending all your free time on stupid fads does not receive scorn as being "sheltered". Ombrageaux is a good example--he hates middle class America from his comfortable, bourgeois-bohemian perch in Belgium.

Sometimes environmental reasons are cited, but they're completely unserious given the lack of attention to other motorized transport, other uses of fossil fuel in the economy, and lack of any attention to EROEI.

grassroots1 wrote:I agree with you that there are situations where people need to drive these cars, in bad weather, in rough terrain, etc. However that doesn't mean that this ban is misguided. There is a tendency to buy these cars regardless of need, in the inner city, where their 4WD is never turned on once. That is a tendency which needs to be fought against, and I think a ban on SUVs in Paris is a good way to do that. I feel sorry for the poor country folk who happen to drive into Paris in their family car, and get ticketed. However that will be the exception and not the rule.

These SUVs that have more fuel efficiency are a positive step, but the trend still exists, and in all likelihood these tiny SUVs could have even better fuel efficiency and probably be safer if they had a lower profile.

I am not complaining about the so-called ban. I understand there are good and valuable reasons to regulate what sort of motor vehicle traffic can access inner cities and at what times. I was addressing Ombrageaux's unfounded invective against SUVs.

QatzelOk wrote:SUVs and really wide vehicles present even greater dangers to non-drivers than narrow, low vehicles.

SUVs - because they are more brick-like, are much more fatal for pedestrians or cyclists in collisions.

And wide vehicles make sharing the road very dangerous for other users.

That's a fair point Qatz, though fortunately new regulations in North America and Europe have forced changes in bumper height and distance between the hood and engine in new automobiles. As new cars (including SUVs) replace the existing fleet, the danger to pedestrian and bicycle traffic will decrease.

Maximum vehicle width has long been regulated and isn't really an SUV issue. The Mercedes Benz S-Class is considerably wider than most SUVs on the roads.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13670496
The SUV, particularly in an urban setting, adds absolutely nothing over a smaller car.


If I didnt have an SUV in the last snow storm I wouldnt be able to get home.
By Pants-of-dog
#13670502
I ride my bike in snowstorms.

Image
By Pants-of-dog
#13670507
Yes. Imagine that.

A feminist is able to ride his bike in the snow, but "real" men need off-road vehicles to be able to travel in the same conditions.

Who is tougher?
User avatar
By Dave
#13670519
The ClockworkRat wrote:Dave, my complaint with the "middle" class is its reactionary, conservative and selfish nature, not that that bothers you ;)

I don't even know what this means, honestly.

Reactionary in what sense? Conservative in what sense? Selfish in what sense?

Is this caused by suburbia and family life?
User avatar
By Dave
#13670559
What is a commodity-filled life exactly, what sort of lifestyle should replace it, what advantages does this new lifestyle offer to the middle class, and for that matter what sort of life do you lead?

Sustainability is a somewhat different question though I agree that the existing worldwide industrial system is not sustainable. However, I suspect we would have different approaches to solving this issue.
By grassroots1
#13670561
The ideologues are largely left-liberals from upper middle class backgrounds. For them bucolic suburbia represents white bread middle America, which for some reason they hate and call "sheltered". Usually they do not have families. Apparently life is only "real" if you have a horrible childhood. For some reason, living in some yuppie, gentrified downtown neighborhood and spending all your free time on stupid fads does not receive scorn as being "sheltered". Ombrageaux is a good example--he hates middle class America from his comfortable, bourgeois-bohemian perch in Belgium.

Sometimes environmental reasons are cited, but they're completely unserious given the lack of attention to other motorized transport, other uses of fossil fuel in the economy, and lack of any attention to EROEI.


I agree. My girlfriend and I went on a road trip last summer and we went to Montana to visit some friends to chill and go camping. We drove a corolla up there, met up with them, and quickly had to leave it and hop in their 4x4 Ford truck to get to our camping site. By the end of it, my girlfriend (coincidentally named Montana) was mentioning how she never really understood the need for these trucks until she got out of the city and into the the country. There's a tendency to subscribe to the "gas-guzzler" mentality which makes sense in the inner city but not in other circumstances.

Though I will say that at least in California, the "upper-middle class" exists in suburbia as much as it exists in the cities, and that those who live at least in California's suburbia in many cases still have little to no need for bigger vehicles. Also, it's far from "life is good in the suburbs, and shit in the cities." From what I've heard about suburbia in my area, kids often take the edge off boredom with drugs and let's just say I've heard of more than one less-than-ideal family situation. That's all an aside.

A middle class lifestyle in North America means a home in the suburbs with a family, convenient appliances, and a car or two. It's a pretty convenient and safe lifestyle conducive to raising a family, but some people have an axe to grind against it.


Well, there is a good reason for that from an environmental perspective. Sometimes suburbs are built on land that could potentially be cultivated, it's sustained by a high level of energy consumption from infrastructure to transportation, etc. If we're really interested in energy independence and alternative energies then we should probably be moving away from the suburb.
Last edited by grassroots1 on 30 Mar 2011 23:53, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#13670568
Dave wrote:What is a commodity-filled life exactly, what sort of lifestyle should replace it, what advantages does this new lifestyle offer to the middle class, and for that matter what sort of life do you lead?

I meant consumer culture, in the derogatory sense.

I dislike the tendency for people to place excessive value in inanimate objects at the expense of other people.

I could rant on about this, but I would end up making too many contradictions, so I won't.
User avatar
By Dave
#13670588
grassroots1 wrote:I agree. My girlfriend and I went on a road trip last summer and we went to Montana to visit some friends to chill and go camping. We drove a corolla up there, met up with them, and quickly had to leave it and hop in their 4x4 Ford truck to get to our camping site. By the end of it, my girlfriend (coincidentally named Montana) was mentioning how she never really understood the need for these trucks until she got out of the city and into the the country. There's a tendency to subscribe to the "gas-guzzler" mentality which makes sense in the inner city but not in other circumstances.

When living in snowier climes, you don't even need to get out to the country to discover this. Nice to see reality opening a young lass's eyes.

grassroots1 wrote:Though I will say that at least in California, the "upper-middle class" exists in suburbia as much as it exists in the cities, and that those who live at least in California's suburbia in many cases still have little to no need for bigger vehicles. Also, it's far from "life is good in the suburbs, and shit in the cities." From what I've heard about suburbia in my area, kids often take the edge off boredom with drugs and let's just say I've heard of more than one less-than-ideal family situation. That's all an aside.

There isn't a clear dividing line between suburban and urban, and it's upper-middle class people WITHOUT kids who tend to rant about suburbia. People with children usually (but not always) know better.

The whole thing about the suburbs being "boring" is a huge crock. The suburbs are boring if you're a young adult. If you're a teenager, you can't afford to do the kind of city things adults like to do and can't get into bars. Teenagers go to high school, so they automatically have access to a large peer group and can make lots of friends. If you're bored as a teenager, barring some unlucky circumstance (your parents' moving you to a weird place), it means you're boring or just a loser.

grassroots1 wrote:Well, there is a good reason for that from an environmental perspective. Sometimes suburbs are built on land that could potentially be cultivated, it's sustained by a high level of energy consumption from infrastructure to transportation, etc. If we're really interested in energy independence and alternative energies then we should probably be moving away from the suburb.

I don't disagree with this, but I would hate for reurbanization to result in a major decline in living standards.

The ClockworkRat wrote:I meant consumer culture, in the derogatory sense.

I dislike the tendency for people to place excessive value in inanimate objects at the expense of other people.

I could rant on about this, but I would end up making too many contradictions, so I won't.

I don't know why you'd blame the middle class for this. People with families who participate in civic life sure don't strike me as consumerist compared to some other social groups. Most of them would probably like to see a lot less advertising directed at their children...
By Pants-of-dog
#13670634
Dave wrote:When living in snowier climes, you don't even need to get out to the country to discover this. Nice to see reality opening a young lass's eyes.


Again, I ride my bicycle in a snowstorm.

While I understand it is more convenient for people to each have an individual off road vehicle for the few days each year that prevent normal cars from being used, there are more environmentally friendly options for city centers.

Dave wrote:There isn't a clear dividing line between suburban and urban, and it's upper-middle class people WITHOUT kids who tend to rant about suburbia. People with children usually (but not always) know better.


Since you already know better, the only possible reason for you to be here is to educate those of us who do not know better. Thank you for coming here to raise us from our lowly unintelligent depths. :|

The whole thing about the suburbs being "boring" is a huge crock. The suburbs are boring if you're a young adult. If you're a teenager, you can't afford to do the kind of city things adults like to do and can't get into bars. Teenagers go to high school, so they automatically have access to a large peer group and can make lots of friends. If you're bored as a teenager, barring some unlucky circumstance (your parents' moving you to a weird place), it means you're boring or just a loser.


My children have many opportunities to entertain themselves because of their proximity to libraries, museums, galleries, cultural centers, sports centers, shopping districts, cafés, zoos, parks, and a long list of other services that are rarely found in walking distance of a suburban home.

Dave wrote:I don't disagree with this, but I would hate for reurbanization to result in a major decline in living standards.


Do you believe that urbanisation is correlated with lower living standards? If so, why?

Dave wrote:I don't know why you'd blame the middle class for this. People with families who participate in civic life sure don't strike me as consumerist compared to some other social groups. Most of them would probably like to see a lot less advertising directed at their children...


Perhaps they could do what many urban families do: get rid of their TV set.
User avatar
By Dave
#13670661
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, I ride my bicycle in a snowstorm.

While I understand it is more convenient for people to each have an individual off road vehicle for the few days each year that prevent normal cars from being used, there are more environmentally friendly options for city centers.

That's nice, but most people are more interested in convenience than making silly statements. Riding your bicycle in a snowstorm exposes you to the elements, requires exertion, reduces your speed of travel (some exceptions), and precludes you from carrying passengers or anything more than minor cargo.

Pants-of-dog wrote:My children have many opportunities to entertain themselves because of their proximity to libraries, museums, galleries, cultural centers, sports centers, shopping districts, cafés, zoos, parks, and a long list of other services that are rarely found in walking distance of a suburban home.

I live in an urban center and absolutely none of these things except places to shop (not a district), cafes, and parks are within walking distance. In most suburbs parks are less important since people have yards.

Almost no kids are actually interested in libraries, museums, galleries, or cultural centers. The exception is smart kids, who by definition are a fraction of the population.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you believe that urbanisation is correlated with lower living standards? If so, why?

-Noise
-Smells
-Pollution
-Lack of space, especially open space
-Much harder to drive
-Proximity to lower social classes
-Crime

Pants-of-dog wrote:Perhaps they could do what many urban families do: get rid of their TV set.

The only people who get rid of their TV sets are weirdos. Ordinary people like the simple, convenient entertainment it provides.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]