Banning Old Cars

[GGT]

As I can feel people starting to gang up on me, let me re-iterate what I just said: none of this means I don't support the overall goal we're talking about here. I merely have concerns about proportionality and the principle of banning an older varient of something that was completely legal when it was sold.

I don't see anyone jumping in to condone what the Mayor of Paris has proposed, do you? Nope, the article is being used as an example, to ask us what we think are better options and methods in reducing vehicle pollution.

There's a difference between banning functionality/features and outright banning the use of a car based on its age. Newer cars are still cars emitting pollutants. Until they invent a car that emits flowers and puppies, there isn't a substantial technological leap that merits banning older cars simply for being old. Both are still cars. No one banned old cars and clocks when leaded gasoline and radium were phased-out; they just started using cars and clocks without radium and leaded gas.

Okay, so you're working backward from the goal to reduce vehicular pollution, by questioning which means and methods should be used....who decides, and how.

What I would really love is to see some kind of comprehensive look at the actual pollutant output between various makes/models of older and newer cars. That's a number we can actually measure.

The manufacturing outcomes that meet highest standards have always come from the "Left Coast", particularly California. I recall you complaining about that in previous threads, and somehow blaming teh federal gummit for EPA standards, or public unions. Or maybe that was Lewk. Sorry, my memory banks were a bit fritzed when you started to post like Lewk Lite.

An interesting system would perhaps incorporate government efficiency requirements into the registration for a car. IE, if you want to register a car whose model/year has a measured average output that is higher than a mean/efficiency standard, you have to pay an extra registration fee. Not a usage fee, but a registration fee.

We already have that system, but only in certain states, and it doesn't solve the problem. No offense, but you're trying to have it both ways. State independents DO NOT WANT to cede to federal/national guidelines. Indeed, they see that as infringing on their freeedoms.

[Hazir]

Tobacco deaths are somewhat easier to track if the person who dies is a smoker or former smoker. I still consider such specific numbers to be somewhat speculative guesses with elaborate methodology behind them.

As I can feel people starting to gang up on me, let me re-iterate what I just said: none of this means I don't support the overall goal we're talking about here. I merely have concerns about proportionality and the principle of banning an older varient of something that was completely legal when it was sold.

There's a difference between banning functionality/features and outright banning the use of a car based on its age. Newer cars are still cars emitting pollutants. Until they invent a car that emits flowers and puppies, there isn't a substantial technological leap that merits banning older cars simply for being old. Both are still cars. No one banned old cars and clocks when leaded gasoline and radium were phased-out; they just started using cars and clocks without radium and leaded gas.

What I would really love is to see some kind of comprehensive look at the actual pollutant output between various makes/models of older and newer cars. That's a number we can actually measure.

An interesting system would perhaps incorporate government efficiency requirements into the registration for a car. IE, if you want to register a car whose model/year has a measured average output that is higher than a mean/efficiency standard, you have to pay an extra registration fee. Not a usage fee, but a registration fee.

Makes a lot more sense than some of the systems I've seen that register cars based on weight.

Poppycock; we're talking about a class of cars that were not subject to any emission standard when they were built. There is no reason to allow them being used as if they are harmless . What's next on your 'Government is stupid' crusade? Lead pipes and asbestos shouldn't be regulated because they were the norm at a time when people weren't aware of the health risks?

Also, as I have pointed out there are no safe levels; there are at best acceptable levels, that are acceptable because they still allow for economical activity, not because they don't harm people. That is also a sufficient explanation why we target the most polluting category of cars.

P.S. I have no regard whatsoever for people who think they are promoting sensible targeted regulation, which in actuality demands a humongous bureaucracy to be enforced, then turn around complaining there is too much bureaucracy. You can only reduce bureaucracy if you sometimes do NOT pander to every single niche interest in society just so that your laws look reasonable on paper.

P.P.S.S. And I hate politicians who metastacize a rule into a 48 separate rules for every sad story they can come up with in the news. The kind of politicians who don't lead but follow the lead of pollsters.

[RandBlade]

Going out on a limb here, but it could be that in 1997 the emission standards were set significantly higher for private cars.

The standards at all times have always been MINIMUM standards. There have been cars above that minimum and its also possible for newer cars to fall beneath (if not well maintained/cheap parts) or for previously poorer cars to go above newer minimums (retrofitting newer replacement parts). I used to own a 1992 Seat Ibiza, in 2001 the exhaust fell off and I replaced it with a new, modern exhaust - do you think that might have affected its emissions? I retired that car and bought a new one since then (actually on my second new one since then) - but if I still had it I suspect that most of the car would have been replaced by now, what is the real age of it? Thankfully we have annual testing here (biennial in France) to make sure its all OK and testing the emissions etc.

Again if the issue is quality of the emissions then there's one simple way to measure that: through the already existing emissions targets that cars ALREADY HAVE BY LAW! No extra work required, the cars are already being tested. That way even if an older car would have failed drivers will face the choice to raise their standards of it (installing better filters, converters, exhausts or whatever else is needed) or replacing the car. At least then it'd be done based on reality rather than fiction.

The real corrupt boon of this fiction is forcing perfectly good cars off the road forces people to buy new ones - more work for Peugeot by any chance?

[Hazir]

The standards at all times have always been MINIMUM standards. There have been cars above that minimum and its also possible for newer cars to fall beneath (if not well maintained/cheap parts) or for previously poorer cars to go above newer minimums (retrofitting newer replacement parts). I used to own a 1992 Seat Ibiza, in 2001 the exhaust fell off and I replaced it with a new, modern exhaust - do you think that might have affected its emissions? I retired that car and bought a new one since then (actually on my second new one since then) - but if I still had it I suspect that most of the car would have been replaced by now, what is the real age of it? Thankfully we have annual testing here (biennial in France) to make sure its all OK and testing the emissions etc.

Again if the issue is quality of the emissions then there's one simple way to measure that: through the already existing emissions targets that cars ALREADY HAVE BY LAW! No extra work required, the cars are already being tested. That way even if an older car would have failed drivers will face the choice to raise their standards of it (installing better filters, converters, exhausts or whatever else is needed) or replacing the car. At least then it'd be done based on reality rather than fiction.

The real corrupt boon of this fiction is forcing perfectly good cars off the road forces people to buy new ones - more work for Peugeot by any chance?

And which cars were scoring above the minimum requirement? Certainly not the cars that are most likely to be still on the road after 17 years; German luxury cars. The German auto industry was vehemently opposing raising requirements. I doubt very much they were against higher demands because their cars were already performing better.

[RandBlade]

And which cars were scoring above the minimum requirement? Certainly not the cars that are most likely to be still on the road after 17 years; German luxury cars. The German auto industry was vehemently opposing raising requirements. I doubt very much they were against higher demands because their cars were already performing better.

But the ban would include many of the most recognizably French cars, including the Citroën 2CV, known as the Deux Chevaux; the Citroën DS, celebrated for its clean, distinctive design; the Renault 4L, a practical Everyman’s car of the 1960s and ’70s; and many classic Peugeots.

If someone wants to drive a Citroën DS or a 50 year old 1960s Renault and it meets the minimum requirements - easily measured, testing is already done by law biennially - then why should it be retired?

[GGT]

I owned a Peugeot in the early 80's. It shouldn't be "banned" for crappy emissions, but retired via the obsolescence track...for being a piece of shit car with seat warmers.

[RandBlade]

The weird thing in this thread is that I'm praising a pre-existing law that already exists not just in France or the UK but is in fact required by the European Union. Typical that with me on the side of the EU's own existing laws, Hazir would go against that.

So Hazir, if you're against testing vehicles individually do you think the EU's requirement for individual testing is wrong and should be reversed?

[GGT]

Where did Hazir say he was against testing individual vehicles?

[Hazir]

Where did Hazir say he was against testing individual vehicles?

Of course I never said anything even close to that. What I said was that old cars that are excessively polluting but that are still allowed because they are subject to more lenient standards should be scrapped or taken out of daily use.

Their owners have had long enough to adjust to the new standards if they are the first owners, if they aren't first owners they should have been aware of the fact that they bought a polluting clunker.

FYI a similar system has been in force in a bunch of German cities since 2008. They have classified cars in 4 groups and over a couple of years are phasing out all cars that aren't compliant with present-day emission standards. The classes coincide with the EU classification for emission standards and not surprisingly the class of 'classless' cars that were not allowed in cities from the start are cars that were registered before or on the 31st of december 1996. Which happens to be all cars from before 1997 as in the Parisian proposal.

[Hazir]

Which means; we are looking again at a piece of shoddy reporting. Old cars are taken off the road for a very good reason; the right of people to breathe clean air, which also happens to coincide with the need of the state not to incur avoidable health expenses. The cars that have an unacceptable level of emissions have been identified a long time ago and the only thing that warrants a raised eyebrow is that the city of Paris has waited so long before it started to tackle the problem.

[GGT]

Then there's Cuba...who's been victim of so many embargoes, their recycled old clunkers have become valuable commodities for Hollywood props departments

[Hazir]

Then there's Cuba...who's been victim of so many embargoes, their recycled old clunkers have become valuable commodities for Hollywood props departments

I have seen the DS in many a dystopian movie as well.

[GGT]

I have seen the DS in many a dystopian movie as well.

DS?

Even autos meant for the discard heap will have some enthusiasts refurbishing motors, making their own parts, constantly trying to keep the old things alive...despite efforts to force their extinction.

[RandBlade]

Of course I never said anything even close to that. What I said was that old cars that are excessively polluting but that are still allowed because they are subject to more lenient standards should be scrapped or taken out of daily use.

Agreed entirely, excessively polluting cars should be taken out of daily use. But cars that are not excessively polluting should be allowed to continue

Just because the current regime says that cars pre-1997 don't have to fall within the current emission testing standards does not mean either that all pre-1997 would be guaranteed to fail the emission testing standards or that they're not taking vehicle inspections still anyway. The very easy solution is to treat a pre-1997 car exactly the same as a post-1997 car and test it to the required standards. Pass - you can drive; Fail - you can't. What could possibly be wrong with that? Tackling an age does not tackle the problem, treating the cars individually (in already-occurring tests) does that.

The law changed a while ago in the UK (don't know if it was EU-wide or not) to state that all car's tyres must have a minimum tread on it and that failure to have sufficient minimum tread left on the tyre would result in a fine and 3 points on your license. Even if you had old tyres pre-dating the law change, the law would still apply. Apply the existing emission standards on the existing MOT tests for all cars - or get Parisian drivers to demonstrate their existing cars have passed the existing standards within the existing test, even though they didn't have to nationally.

The solution to an exemption is not to cut the throat of all who're covered by the exemption, but rather to simply remove the exemption. Scrapping the lenient standards would be a better test than scrapping all cars the lenient standards apply to. If cars weren't already getting individually tested, if emissions tests weren't already part of that individual test, then yes individually testing cars for emissions would be a ridiculous bureaucracy to introduce. But that's not the case, cars (including these) already are required to get tested and emissions tests are a standard part of that test.

[RandBlade]

On this forum Lewk (and others at times) has often spoken against the fact that USA Colleges set laxer entry standards for black than white students.

What Hazir is proposing here is equivalent to saying due to the laxer requirements in the future NO black students will be allowed to go to College, rather than levelling the requirements.

[Dreadnaught]

The more I think about this and read over the posts, the more it seems we're really missing a huge chunk of information here.

As Hazir points out, many older cars had zero emissions testing at all. Their actual emissions are an unknown quantity. We don't know if a 1966 Beetle or Ford Falcon has better/worse/substantially different emissions than a 1980s Chevy. For all we know, the Falcon has substantially cleaner emissions than the Beetle. Or the Beetle has similar emissions to a 1980s Chevy. Or maybe better. It's really a black box.

To me, this means that we don't have enough data given the emissions involved in producing a car. But I'd rather like that data, it would be really interesting.

[RandBlade]

In case you're not aware (Hazir should be since he lives within the EU) - every car within the EU must undergo inspections either annual [in the UK] or at the maximum biennial [every 2 years is the EU maximum]. Exception only for brand new cars which have a 4 year grace before it needs doing (three in the UK). These inspections involve a large number of safety checks to insure that beaten down old death traps aren't on the road to kill us all with - but they also require emissions testing. Some old cars are exempted from the emissions testing.

This isn't a case of testing a car when it was manufactured, its about testing it in the here and now. As it is - warts and all. A three year old car if badly looked after could fail the test. A well-maintained 17 year old car could pass it.

However because 15 year old cars were exempted from the requirement of the emissions testing part of the tests [because the standards weren't in place when they were manufactured], now apparently they should all be forced off the roads altogether. What I'm saying is that when they next have their routine test, implement the emissions standards. The standards are there already and it'll be based on what the car is measured to pump out today in a test - not what some test upon manufacture before it drove tens of thousands of miles, had parts replaced, had services or not supposedly emits.

[Dreadnaught]

Wait, just so I'm clear, you didn't have any emissions controls until 15 years ago?

[RandBlade]

I'll be honest I'm a bit fuzzy on that bit. The current emission guidelines came in then, I'm not sure what the threshold before it was - but I don't believe it formed part of the MOT for old cars before 15 years ago. Either way again though the standards do exist now, the cars do exist now, and the testing does exist now. A pretty perfect trifecta for resolving the question of whether or not they're safe on the standards then would be to apply the standards to them.

[Flixy]

I agree with Rand. However: this a mayor, not national politics. Since he can only regulate his own city, he can't require all cars to be tested for emissions, or set higher standards for all MOT-like tests. He can either ban nothing, or all cars older than that. Though he could provide permits for older cars which are proven to meet the emission standards.

Also, Loki, a tax proportional to MPG.. I think you might simply be looking for a gas tax

[Dreadnaught]

Wow, it looks like the US led the way on auto emissions pretty substantially. Don't see that every day:

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/vogel/federalism.pdf (pages 6-8ish)

Beyond leaded gasoline, it seems the US had a 15-20 year lead on nominal auto emissions limits. That certainly changes the context a bit.

[Loki]

Also, Loki, a tax proportional to MPG.. I think you might simply be looking for a gas tax

Didn't think of that angle. I do think a gas tax is a good time, and gas taxes in France aren't particularly low...

[Flixy]

Probably not, though. Don't know if it should be even higher to compensate the 'true' cost, or lower. While it does discourage gas guzzlers, it doesn't address city problems, where density of cars is an issue. Or less clean burning, exhausts, etc., plus people in a city individually often do not drive as much which makes it less effective against pollution.

Plus a too high gas tax will cost in business that rely on transportation.

[Loki]

If density is a problem, why not have a congestion charge like they do in London?

[Ominous Gamer]

If they are looking at emissions a gas tax isn't going to do anything. Some of the most efficient vehicles MPG wise are some of the worse polluters.

[Flixy]

Examples? I know it's not one on one link between the two but it's not like they are unconnected.Loki, I don't know, tourism perhaps? It's already an expensive city.

[Loki]

You're effectively banning entire classes of cars. Pretty sure that would affect tourism more.

[Flixy]

Idk, didn't think most tourists who visit paris don't drive old cars. It was just a wild guess anyway.

[Loki]

Occam's razor: the guy is a moron.

[Ominous Gamer]

Examples? I know it's not one on one link between the two but it's not like they are unconnected.Loki, I don't know, tourism perhaps? It's already an expensive city.

almost every bike out there. which may be why the bike age limit in the article above is ~40% lower.

with older cars (at least in the US), if you could hit a certain MPG, you could cut corners in other areas, such as less effective (or none at all) catalytic converters. US didn't have testing for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons till 65, and the requirements were so lax that Nixon had congress agree that the approved levels needed to drop by 90% by 75. It wasn't until 92 that the EU adopted the same standard that the US had used during Nixon's time (dread's article).