Paris may ban SUVs - 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 QatzelOk
#13605747
The New York Times wrote:Paris Considers a Ban on S.U.V.’s
By NICK KURCZEWSKI

Image
"I’m sorry, but having a sport utility vehicle in a city makes no sense"

The City of Lights could soon become the city without S.U.V.’s.

Government officials in Paris are considering putting in effect a series of regulations that would heavily tax, or completely ban, S.U.V.’s and high-polluting, old diesel vehicles from entering the city center.

Details of the proposed plan — the hours during which charges would apply, the fee amount and the charge-zone boundaries, for starters — are still being determined.

Many modern S.U.V.’s are built with the same engines and transmissions found in sedans and crossover vehicles. A car technically classified a subcompact but fitted with a high-horsepower gasoline engine could be allowed a free pass, despite polluting more than a cleaner-running but larger S.U.V. Therefore, a blanket ban seems unlikely. The objective of any proposed legislation seems primarily intended to alleviate urban congestion, no matter the type of vehicle.

Such unknows nevertheless have not stopped French politicians from taking aim. “I’m sorry, but having a sport utility vehicle in a city makes no sense,” said Denis Baupin, deputy mayor of Paris, in an interview with RTL radio from December. “Sell it and buy a vehicle that’s compatible with city life,” Mr. Baupin advised owners of high-polluting vehicles. This could include old diesels, whose carbon emissions were notoriously higher before more stringent emissions standards took effect.
...


The most beautiful big city in the world is thinking about banning the ugliest vehicle type. Montreal is usually a few years behind these Paris trends so... let it be me next! "The City with No SUVs". :lol:
Last edited by QatzelOk on 21 Jan 2011 04:09, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By MB.
#13605748
I support this policy. Follow up with stiff taxes on luxury cars and high-carbon emission vehicles.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13605859
I too support this policy. I look forward to seeing a (translated) copy of the laws once in force.
User avatar
By Zagadka
#13625021
I cast my vote as aye.

From what I've seen in Paris, I have no godly idea how a SUV actually fits in streets in the center of the city.

Anyway, companies will get around this by modifying some things and changing the classification, like crossovers. California is just raising the min MPG on new models every year.
User avatar
By Otebo
#13625438
London has a Low Emissions Zone which charges commercial vehicles entering much of the city, and a Congestion Charge for all vehicles (with certain exemptions, such as electric vehicles and those with very low emissions). This sounds like a similar scheme, I doubt they'd put in place a blanket ban on SUV's.

Interestingly some foreign embassies (led by the US) refuse to pay the charges. The Yanks now have nearly £5 million in unpaid fines.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13625446
That's the spirit!
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13625866
some foreign embassies (led by the US) refuse to pay the charges.


Image

This bit of propaganda is probably supposed to make British people feel better about driving their tinny little shit-boxes into every square inch of their downtowns, even where this is impractical and unpleasant like in London, and the narrow high streets of most cities.
By Pants-of-dog
#13628684
eugenekop wrote:Does anyone know how unhealthy car pollution is? That's a honest question.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740751/

The subjects living in areas with high levels of air pollution showed higher prevalence rates of respiratory symptoms and a larger decrease of FEV1 compared with those living in areas with low levels of air pollution. Since the traffic density is larger in areas with high air pollution, the differences among the groups may reflect the effect of air pollution attributable to particulate matter found in automobile exhaust.


http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-84865568.html

Motor vehicles emit particulate matter < 2.5 [micro]m in diameter (P[M.sub.2.5]), and as a result, P[M.sub.2.5] concentrations tend to be elevated near busy streets. Studies of the relationship between motor vehicle emissions and respiratory health are generally limited by difficulties in exposure assessment. We developed a refined exposure model and implemented it using a geographic information system to estimate the average daily census enumeration area (EA) exposure to P[M.sub.2.5]. Southeast Toronto, the study area, includes 334 EAs and covers 16 [km.sup.2] of urban area. We used hospital admission diagnostic codes from 1990 to 1992 to measure respiratory and genitourinary conditions. We assessed the effect of EA exposure on hospital admissions using a Poisson mixed-effects model and examined the spatial distributions of variables. Exposure to P[M.sub.2.5] has a significant effect on admission rates for a subset of respiratory diagnoses (asthma, bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection), with a relative risk of 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.45) for a [log.sub.10] increase in exposure. We noted a weaker effect of exposure on hospitalization for all respiratory conditions, and no effect on hospitalization for nonrespiratory conditions. Key words: geographic information system, respiratory health, spatial autocorrelation, vehicle emissions.


http://www.ehjournal.net/content/6/1/23

There is growing evidence of a distinct set of freshly-emitted air pollutants downwind from major highways, motorways, and freeways that include elevated levels of ultrafine particulates (UFP), black carbon (BC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO). People living or otherwise spending substantial time within about 200 m of highways are exposed to these pollutants more so than persons living at a greater distance, even compared to living on busy urban streets. Evidence of the health hazards of these pollutants arises from studies that assess proximity to highways, actual exposure to the pollutants, or both. Taken as a whole, the health studies show elevated risk for development of asthma and reduced lung function in children who live near major highways. Studies of particulate matter (PM) that show associations with cardiac and pulmonary mortality also appear to indicate increasing risk as smaller geographic areas are studied, suggesting localized sources that likely include major highways. Although less work has tested the association between lung cancer and highways, the existing studies suggest an association as well. While the evidence is substantial for a link between near-highway exposures and adverse health outcomes, considerable work remains to understand the exact nature and magnitude of the risks.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... archtype=a

To examine whether motor vehicle exhaust from freeways has an effect on respiratory health of children, a cross-sectional study was conducted. Children attending schools situated less than 1000 m from major freeways in the Province of South Holland were asked to participate. The selected freeways carry between 80,000 and 150,000 vehicles per day. Separate counts for truck traffic indicated a range from 8000 to 17,500 trucks per day. At a total of 13 schools, 1498 children were asked to participate. From these children, 1068 usable questionnaires were obtained. Chronic respiratory symptoms reported in the questionnaire were analyzed with logistic regression. Distance from the freeway and (truck) traffic intensity were used as exposure variables. Cough, wheeze, runny nose, and doctor-diagnosed asthma were significantly more often reported for children living within 100 m from the freeway. Truck traffic intensity and the concentration of black smoke measured in schools were found to be significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms. These relationships were more pronounced in girls than in boys.


The link between automobile exhaust and respiratory problems is clearly established in the medical literature.
By eugenekop
#13628792
The link has been established. But by how much a person who lives next to a freeway is more likely to develop those diseases as opposed to a person who lives in a countryside was not mentioned in any of the quotes you brought. For example If the ratio is only 1 to 1.2 then I wouldn't consider it significant. The other important parameter is what is the death rate of those diseases. If a death caused by them is very rare I wouldn't consider it significant either.
By Pants-of-dog
#13628828
eugenekop wrote:The link has been established. But by how much a person who lives next to a freeway is more likely to develop those diseases as opposed to a person who lives in a countryside was not mentioned in any of the quotes you brought. For example If the ratio is only 1 to 1.2 then I wouldn't consider it significant. The other important parameter is what is the death rate of those diseases. If a death caused by them is very rare I wouldn't consider it significant either.


You would not consider a twenty percent increase in pulmonary disease significant?

By the way, the increased likelihood is mentioned in some of the quotes. The second one even gives numbers.
By Quantum
#13635090
Vive la Paris! May this scheme spread throughout the continent.
User avatar
By nucklepunche
#13668923
I think a ban on SUVs goes to far, but then again I live in a small town in the Midwest where SUVs are about every third car. I think what needs to be done is simply raise mileage. This is just a way for the liberal elite to get rid of something they personally dislike.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13668938
nucklepunche - Something incidentally utterly wasteful and frivolous, symbol of Americans' financially and environmentally sustainable lifestyle, and of the fact they have in practice decided to place material consumption ahead other issues their leaders pretend to be important, such as energy independence and national security. Incidentally, they have the same attitude towards "food", but to this we would add Americans value material consumption more than the health of their children.
Last edited by Ombrageux on 29 Mar 2011 04:56, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13668945
This is just a way for the liberal elite to get rid of something they personally dislike.



Banning SUVs is actually an attack on wealthy people in Paris, because ordinary French people can't afford all that diesel.

Likewise, while "The Liberal Elite" here in North America have no problem paying for gas, poor people who live in our sprawled out and dead cities spend up to half their income on transportation.
User avatar
By El Gilroy
#13669268
Really, there's no point in driving a large car in the city, unless it's either a bus or a tank.
User avatar
By Dave
#13670204
Ombrageux wrote:nucklepunche - Something incidentally utterly wasteful and frivolous, symbol of Americans' financially and environmentally sustainable lifestyle, and of the fact they have in practice decided to place material consumption ahead other issues their leaders pretend to be important, such as energy independence and national security. Incidentally, they have the same attitude towards "food", but to this we would add Americans value material consumption more than the health of their children.

The SUV market is increasingly going in the direction of "cross-overs", in which the SUVs are based on the same platforms as sedans and have unit steel bodies. They are fairly close in fuel efficiency to ordinary automobiles, while being much roomier and offering higher ground clearance. The Hummer H2 is quite atypical in 2011. This is very handy for people who need to carry a lot of people and cargo or deal with inclement weather. Even though I live in a built up metropolitan area, several times a year there are times where I basically cannot drive my vehicle. This isn't that big of a deal, but it's nice to have friends with trucks if we really need to go somewhere.

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.

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.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]

Candace Owens

She has, and to add gravitas to what she has said[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspirac[…]

Both of them have actually my interest at heart. […]