Paris may ban SUVs - Page 5 - 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 nucklepunche
#13672490
I don't get why the solution is always a ban, I don't understand why their can't be some sort of positive action. I can think of a few.

1) Deregulation of taxi services. Most cities currently limit the number of taxis on the road.

2) Increased funding for public transit, especially buses. I do not see light rail as financially sound as buses. What I would prefer is heavy commuter rail to take people from city centers to suburbs with buses in the city centers.

3) Raise CAFE standards (or whatever they have in other countries).

The way I see it banning certain types of vehicles is unfair to the poor and unfair to businesses that depend upon them. Oh but you could all go out and buy a Prius. Oh but what if you can't afford a new prius? Also did you know that the more efficient a product becomes the more we tend to use it. Thus fuel efficient cars tend to be driven more and thus do not actually save pollution.
By Pants-of-dog
#13672527
nucklepunche wrote:I don't get why the solution is always a ban,


It isn't always a ban. Even the OP article isn't really about a ban. As the article says, "the objective of any proposed legislation seems primarily intended to alleviate urban congestion, no matter the type of vehicle." The politician that was interviewed said some quotable remark about banning SUVs and the media used it as a controversial soundbite (as the politician probably hoped they would), but the real policy makers are not looking at a ban.

It's more of a "tax them so much they do not want to drive in the city centre" sort of thing.

I don't understand why their can't be some sort of positive action. I can think of a few.

1) Deregulation of taxi services. Most cities currently limit the number of taxis on the road.


They do? I have never heard of that, but it sounds like one of those surreal things that humans do. Do you know why municipalities do that? A bit of research suggests that the main reason for such regulation is pressure from the cabbies themselves. The problem is that if you let in a large influx of workers (i.e. increase the supply of labour while keeping the demand for that labour the same) you reduce the price for that labour. Cabbies make very little money as it is. Deregulating the industry would probably make owning a taxi unprofitable.

2) Increased funding for public transit, especially buses. I do not see light rail as financially sound as buses. What I would prefer is heavy commuter rail to take people from city centers to suburbs with buses in the city centers.


I agree, but I will withhold my opinions as to which systems are best. I think that different cities will require different solutions according to their different needs.

3) Raise CAFE standards (or whatever they have in other countries).


I would not only raise fuel economy standards, but I would also make exhaust emissions regulations more stringent. I would also limit vehicles that are too large to be covered by CAFE standards to be banned from city centres unless they are there for business reasons.

The way I see it banning certain types of vehicles is unfair to the poor and unfair to businesses that depend upon them. Oh but you could all go out and buy a Prius. Oh but what if you can't afford a new prius?


Yes, this concern is also an issue that the Parisian authorities are dealing with, as I already mentioned.

Also did you know that the more efficient a product becomes the more we tend to use it. Thus fuel efficient cars tend to be driven more and thus do not actually save pollution.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13672870
Pants stop asking everyone to prove things that are well known, sheesh get a new trick.
By Pants-of-dog
#13672914
Oxymoron wrote:Pants stop asking everyone to prove things that are well known, sheesh get a new trick.


No. I will continue to ask for evidence of those things that I find doubtful.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13673056
Oxy wrote:Pants stop asking everyone to prove things that are well known, sheesh get a new trick.

I remember once, someone wrote: "This is 2011, and not 1972!" and another poster asked for a source.

:lol:
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13673362
QatzelOk wrote:I remember once, someone wrote: "This is 2011, and not 1972!" and another poster asked for a source.

:lol:


Link?
User avatar
By nucklepunche
#13673428
They do? I have never heard of that, but it sounds like one of those surreal things that humans do. Do you know why municipalities do that? A bit of research suggests that the main reason for such regulation is pressure from the cabbies themselves. The problem is that if you let in a large influx of workers (i.e. increase the supply of labour while keeping the demand for that labour the same) you reduce the price for that labour. Cabbies make very little money as it is. Deregulating the industry would probably make owning a taxi unprofitable.


Well there's the fact that a taxi medallion in New York City costs $600,000. It is less elsewhere but most major cities have a similar regulation. Now it is funny that we've been debating the issue of traffic congestion and now suddenly the concern is for the profits of taxi companies. Well I have put forth a solution to the congestion problem and now you oppose it? Yes it might make profits go down but the cabbies themselves are not keeping the profits, the taxi companies are. Most cabbies are poor immigrants. Can they afford a $600,000 medallion? No. This may cut into the profits of Big Taxi but it will reduce congestion.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13673496
About someone who asked for a source, yiwa wrote:Link?

She has since left the forum.

Funny thing is that no one could prove it wasn't 1972, or any other year.

They're just numbers. They don't mean very much as markers.

So we just all pretended like "2011" meant something for the rest of that thread.

And then, Paris comes along and bans SUVs, and we're back on topic again.
User avatar
By Dave
#13674601
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I will continue to ask for evidence of those things that I find doubtful.

It's an economic concept known as Jevons' Paradox, based on the observation in 19th century England by William Stanley Jevons that increasingly efficient coal combustion made it economic for more uses, which increased coal consumption.
By Pants-of-dog
#13674742
nucklepunche wrote:Well there's the fact that a taxi medallion in New York City costs $600,000. It is less elsewhere but most major cities have a similar regulation. Now it is funny that we've been debating the issue of traffic congestion and now suddenly the concern is for the profits of taxi companies. Well I have put forth a solution to the congestion problem and now you oppose it? Yes it might make profits go down but the cabbies themselves are not keeping the profits, the taxi companies are. Most cabbies are poor immigrants. Can they afford a $600,000 medallion? No. This may cut into the profits of Big Taxi but it will reduce congestion.


Like I have been saying all along, there are pros and cons to every system. I have no problem removing the current regulations in terms of market entry, and if we also increase demand by banning private automobile use within city centres, we can (hopefully) circumvent issues of profitability.

Dave wrote:It's an economic concept known as Jevons' Paradox, based on the observation in 19th century England by William Stanley Jevons that increasingly efficient coal combustion made it economic for more uses, which increased coal consumption.


I looked it up on wiki:

The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation is futile, as increased efficiency may actually increase fuel use. Nevertheless, increased efficiency can improve material living standards. Further, fuel use declines if increased efficiency is coupled with a green tax that keeps the cost of use the same (or higher).[3] As the Jevons paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, policies that impose conservation standards and increase costs do not display the Jevons paradox.


So, this can also be circumvented by banning private automobile use in city centres.
User avatar
By SSDR
#14991733
I don't like SUV's. For residential uses, they are too big, waste too much gas and material to construct the car, and most of them are UGLY. :knife:
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14993412
Eight years later, and there are more SUVs than ever in Paris.

Which demonstrates that our species has done nothing significant to adapt to our environment.

The most succesfully selfish consumers have learned to block out anti-consumption messages.

And the elite uses progressive memes (Paris might ban SUVs) to displace any truly helpful anti-consumption.

Capitalism as house fire.
User avatar
By redcarpet
#14993580
MB. wrote:I support this policy. Follow up with stiff taxes on luxury cars and high-carbon emission vehicles.


Same here, we need it here in Melbourne! It's starting to look like the streets of downtown L.A and it's disgusting! These SUV owners are selfish, they're not in the country! They don't need these vehicles. We need to put a stop to it
By Sivad
#14993601
Paris is gay.
User avatar
By SolarCross
#14993728
1. An SUV is not necessarily large, powerful or expensive. The 1.3 litre Suzuki Jimny is an SUV but it is hardly bigger or heavier than a lunchbox.

2. In theory you shouldn't need a 4x4 to traverse city roads but often city roads are extremely poorly maintained and even contain artificial obstacles like speed bumps.

3. It is not the case that people who live or work in the country and genuinely need 4x4 capabilities will never have cause to visit the city. It is not particularly practical to maintain a city vehicle AND a country vehicle at the same time.

4. Never pander to whiny retards.

Image
By Sivad
#14993732
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14994279
Rancid wrote:Question:
Is it true that in Europe SUVs are becoming more popular/common?

I bet this is true of almost all the countries of the earth. Corporations are corporations, they don't really care about local culture except for marketing purposes.

The SUV is a profit-maximizing consumer gadget (ie. consumes as many resources as possible), and capitalism will sell us this type of object right to the edge of extinction - and they will only stop when their marketing people start dying of starvation and exposure.
User avatar
By SolarCross
#14994287
QatzelOk wrote:I bet this is true of almost all the countries of the earth. Corporations are corporations, they don't really care about local culture except for marketing purposes.

The SUV is a profit-maximizing consumer gadget (ie. consumes as many resources as possible), and capitalism will sell us this type of object right to the edge of extinction - and they will only stop when their marketing people start dying of starvation and exposure.

SUVs are increasingly popular because road surfaces are increasingly bad. The higher ride height, 4x4 traction and tanky suspension makes pot-holes and speedbumps quite tolerable.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14994563
SolarCross wrote:SUVs are increasingly popular because road surfaces are increasingly bad. The higher ride height, 4x4 traction and tanky suspension makes pot-holes and speedbumps quite tolerable.

The perfect vehicle for a crumbling civilization.

And it helps us crumble along by hijacking all our money for oil wars and expensive infra.
College Admissions Scandal

https://i.redd.it/5zdq8me81do21.p[…]

Well, I will focus solely on this story in this t[…]

Well, we can always weed idiots out of the gene p[…]

Trump and Russiagate

It's not that the mainstream media and high profi[…]