By on February 16, 2015

paris authentic citroen 2CV eiffel HR

Want to continue to drive in Paris? You’ll need a new vehicle starting this summer, when the French city begins restricting older vehicles from its heart.

Autocar reports buses and trucks registered prior to October 2001 will all be barred from entering the city center starting this summer; cars registered before January 1997 will be prohibited in 2016. The restrictions will roll forward through 2020, when cars registered after 2011 and motorcycles registered after this July will be the only ones allowed within.

The upcoming restrictions, as well as the nation’s own changing view on diesel, could prompt owners to ditch their older, less green vehicles for cleaner solutions like EVs and turbo-powered models, especially those made by French automakers. Incentives, such as paying €10,000 ($11,420 USD) to make the switch, would further encourage such moves.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

97 Comments on “Paris To Begin Rolling Ban On Older Vehicles This Summer...”


  • avatar
    redav

    Some reports say that eliminating road lanes has reverse induced demand, i.e., removing the road and people stop traveling there.

    I wonder if this will have the same effect–instead of replacing their cars, people just stop going to Paris city center.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      Paris is the opposite of most American big cities (except NYC): rich people live downtown and poor people live in the suburbs.

    • 0 avatar
      philipwitak

      “…wonder if this will have the same effect–instead of replacing their cars, people just stop going to Paris city center.”
      redav / February 16th, 2015 at 7:19 am

      seriously doubt it. of all the many, many attractions paris has to offer it’s visitors, driving in snarled traffic can’t be anywhere near the top of the list.

    • 0 avatar

      They have public transportation. Who in his right mind would like to drive car in city center in Europe? It is much more enjoyable to walk. If I go to SF city center the cars is the last of my options, I always ride BART.

  • avatar

    If I ever choose to travel to your approach it would be pretty disappointing not seeing all of the classic European cars that I know from literature and older film.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Oh well – everything changes and the world moves ahead. Probably a good thing once one gets over nostalgia. Hope owners of classic older cars keep them somewhere, if they are worth saving – most are not and will be crushed. So…

    More IPhones a-comin’!

  • avatar

    Yet again people choose to give up their freedoms in the name of whatever. Freedoms won over centuries of struggle torn down. Amazing really in the country of liberté, egalité et featernité.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I have to be honest, I didn’t expect that from you, and while I’ve never been to France, my American stereotypes for them would assume only the people who were hurt by this would care. I mean, look at the Gentleman in charge of the country, that’s what the majority wanted, eventually there will be another revolution and the government will be over thrown as corrupt, when in reality the people voted in those changes.
      People just don’t seem to care until it impacts them.

      • 0 avatar

        I don’t underwrite any specific ideology. Liberal (in the original meaning of the word) freedoms are not always conductive to a freer society. This however is a thinly veiled hipocrosy of modern capitalism and undermines both people’s right and the givernment’s role in service of the mega corporations which control more and more from behind various façades.

    • 0 avatar
      NeilM

      @Marcelo:
      One person’s freedoms end where another’s begin, and the freedom to breathe clean air overwhelmingly trumps the freedom to drive an old and polluting car.

      Add to that the facts that Paris has heavy traffic, many narrow streets, catastrophic parking, and very good public transportation options, and I’d say the French are taking the actions they need to. (And yes, I know Paris well and lived there for several years.)

      • 0 avatar

        I agree. But the car is made to move an was legal when bought. They probably also have tough inspections in France. Many who have older cars do it of necessity and also have the right to work and go as they please. Tjat rigjt is at least as big as yours and to me bigger than yours.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Non! (That’s a good bit of my French)

        This is pernicious regulation designed to fill the books with more and more laws which under the guise of good intentions let the government do whatever it wants. In this case, it placates the rich urban owners and the greens and the auto makers. It penalizes those who own older vehicles. It’s designed to get more votes than it loses from a populace who thinks votes are weapons.

        They are exploiting the tenuous correlation between age of a vehicle and its pollution output. The standard for the law should not be correlation. You don’t penalize all owners of older vehicles because some of the cars are polluters. Of course, after decades of teaching that high incomes come through dishonesty and greed rather than working hard and smart, this is exactly what you’d expect.

        It’s all minor league Orwellian bull.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The correlation between vehicle age and smog is not exactly a secret. The older cars don’t have modern emissions equipment.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Correlations are not grounds for punishment.

            Equipment requirements are terrible, stupid, and often corrupt regulations resulting in uncounted costs, injuries, and deaths. Don’t require a piece of equipment, require a standard of performance.

            If I want to drive my 55 Chevy in the smog zone, I will then go make it meet the standard. It may sound stupid, but you don’t know what you don’t know so don’t eliminate the incentive to innovate.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Yeah, have fun bolting a catalytic converter and EGR onto a 2CV.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Yeah, that would be the solution of someone who sees no problem with equipment requirements.

            If we agree as a people that pollution should be regulated, then I have no issue with that. If we instead just slap on some committee’s desire for some sort of contraption to be applied instead of setting standards and limitations, then I have big issues with that, and so should you if you have a liberal bone in your body.

        • 0 avatar

          I think it has less to with government and is more about those who pull its strings (and society’s, too).

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Removing older cars from the roads is the low-hanging fruit of smog reduction. It’s the most obvious way to accomplish a lot with relatively low effort.

            The plan may not actually work in practice, but the theory behind it is sound.

          • 0 avatar

            Yes I understand that. Doesn’t make it any less discriminatory.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            There are always those trying to corrupt. This is government’s job to prevent. I hold the thief responsible for thieving, and the Mayor responsible for too many thieves in town. If you think an official is corrupt, more regulations on campaign finance seem a pretty silly reaction.

          • 0 avatar

            I think this a reflection of much deeper changes than simple thieving.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            You are correct, it’s not simple at all.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It discriminates against smog. Quelle horreur!

          • 0 avatar

            Pch you are smart enough to appreciate my point.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I’m sure that the plan isn’t to discriminate, it’s to reduce as much smog as possible while restricting as few vehicles as possible. Singling out older vehicles is the obvious way to do that.

            Sweeping bans don’t really work. A notable example of this is Mexico City, that uses license plate numbers to ban vehicles one day per week. That law encouraged drivers to buy second cars with different plate numbers, which were invariably cheap and produced as much or more smog than the car that was given the day off.

            I do feel badly for any tradesmen who might be affected. France has been stuck in the German-led austerity recession, so I would imagine that there must be a few guys who have been milking what they can out of their older vehicles.

          • 0 avatar

            Pch, there you go. Now I agree with every single word. The intention is not to duscriminate, but it does and shows we live in a world where people feel they can take this kind of measure in spite of the pain caused to some of the most vulnerable people in a society.

            Btw, the hare brained scheme in México you mention was also implemented in Sao Paulo. With the same exact results.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Austerity? Quelle austerity?

            I think this rule is quite sweeping, and sets a terrible precedent. Why not demand more from the Government of one of the worlds top cities?

            Next, let’s ban older people as well. I’m sure they correlate with all sorts of undesirable things.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I think the B&B could likely make a list of ten year old cars that are much cleaner than a list of five year old cars.

            This isn’t discrimination against smog, it’s lazy draconian nonsense disguised as governance. The real message here is not to buy a car at all since we overlords can restrict your use of it anytime we like.

            That sort of thing about killed General Aviation in the US having already done so in Europe.

            They will come for you one day PCH, and they won’t care how much water you carried for them on the Internet.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            For the amount of time that you spend on the internet, surely you could learn how to use Google.

            1996 is the year that Euro 2 came into effect. Euro 2 standards were, not surprisingly, above the standards of Euro 1. The mayor has apparently decided that using Euro 2 as a baseline should be the starting point for dealing with the smog problem.

            The new cars today are made to comply with Euro 6, which should be a hint that there have been several improvements over the years. The smog standards are increasing over time.

            And prior to Euro 1, Europe didn’t have much in the way of smog standards. The Europeans were making cars that ran on leaded gas long after the US had stopped; the US was ahead of the curve on smog emissions controls.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I know you love to throw out facts without relevance so I’m not surprised you think you got me with that, but you didn’t.

            Last I checked, ten years ago (the number I posted) was 2005. The law is going to get more restrictive. The version of regs is a minimum. Want to try again? If you want to google up proof I’m wrong have fun. I’m betting my guess is correct. The top gas burners are bound to beat the worst diesels.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Cars are getting cleaner over time. She’s going for the older cars. This isn’t that complicated.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I believe it fair to point out that intentions stated and actual motives are not always the same. Besides that, I have done a good job showing the disconnect between the rule and the intention and I could go on about the marginal effects this will have.

            What I don’t understand is why its so hard for so many to see what I am pointing out. Why was it not obvious to a bunch of car guys?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You’re taking something that is fairly straightforward and trying to complicate it for the sake of, well, I don’t know what exactly.

            We know when the emissions tiers kicked in. Even if some cars pollute at somewhat different levels, it’s pretty obvious that a Euro 6 car is going to produce far fewer smog producing emissions than a pre-Euro 2 car. Slicing and dicing it in a thousand different ways won’t change that.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Now who is making it complicated? Euro x vs euro Y+1 is it?

            How about the endgame actually proposed? 2010 vs 2011? If you can’t take my initial challenge how about we use the actual proposed standard?

            Or, we can make it as simple as I started out making it. It’s wrong based on principle. If pollution is the standard, then pollution should be the factor rather than year of manufacture. That’s simple, and it has the benefit of being a solid bit of common sense.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            If you can’t figure out the correlation between production years and pollution levels, then there is no point in trying to explain (again) to you something that is quite simple.

            But the French have apparently figured this out, so it really doesn’t matter that you don’t grasp it. You don’t live there, you’re never going to live there, and it has no effect on you at all. Tant pis.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            You’ve now come full circle. I refer you to my comments about correlation above, as well as recommend you grow up. We are done here.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            When asked what effect the ban might have on the poor who might not be able to afford a newer car Parisian mayor Anne Hidalgo was quoted as saying,

            “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”

            (Let them eat cake)

            Why is anyone surprised by this? It’s a French thing

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Near the Arc De Triumphe, there are no rules for the intersection and no insurance company will cover you if you have an accident there. The banning of the older diesels (with no particulate filters) and petrol engines should make a difference. On the other hand Paris is a lot less polluted than many US cities,as a result of the heavy use of public transport, bicycles etc so it is a relative thing

        • 0 avatar
          wmba

          As usual, you are incorrect. Insurance isn’t cancelled if you have an accident on the Arc de Triomphe.

          https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/blog/2008/09/car-insurance-myths-1.html

          What was it a few months ago? Oh Yes, you told us that you couldn’t get insurance for a LHD drive car in the UK. I exposed that piece of nonsense too.

          In fact, just about everything you say is utter and complete rubbish. You rabbit on about the UAW without having the faintest idea what you’re talking about. And you do not spell well, nor are your sentence construction skills much beyond what I was capable of at the age of eight.

          You hinted last week that you were an “important” person hiding behind your screen name. Ex Prime Minister, no doubt.

          The long-term institution for the delusional you’re living in somewhere in Southern Australia should pull your Internet privileges. It would save everyone the bother of reading lunatic assertions.

          I think I can say, without an ounce of exaggeration nor fear of contradiction, that you are a complete and utter dolt.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            psst… he drinks, a lot

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Robert has a policy of making at least one factual error per day. He’s very diligent about achieving his goals.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            One!?

            You’re too kind

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            One is the minimum that he’ll tolerate. The main thing is that the number will never be zero.

            Regarding the Arc de Triomphe, I thought that it was well known for being a no-fault zone because of the insurance complications. What didn’t help is that France used to give priority to the traffic entering the circle, which made for some nutty divebombing maneuvers on roundabouts. (Requiring the traffic in the circle to yield was never a good idea.)

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            That’s “Arc De Triumphe” smarty pants

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I forgot to misspell it properly.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Well the UAW is offended again by the truth, You cannot get normal insurance for both, you can get SOME insurance companies to cover you, but you pay arm and a leg premiums. I mentioned that about LHD drive cars in The UK, you seem to have ignored this or are you that thick you could not comprehend,. More the later I suspect

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            I notice the UAW “children” are making their non iuninformed comments again

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    This is probably aimed at the old, smelly diesels.

  • avatar

    This applies to cars like the DS and 2CV? Seems rather odd.

  • avatar
    daniel g.

    Okey, sooo now what??? ohh more electric conversion of the citroen DS yeahhh!!!!

    http://www.evalbum.com/4778

    this guy already make in holland, so can a take the 10.000 euros to convert the car??

    ohh an add this paint http://www.designboom.com/technology/nissan-glow-in-the-dark-leaf-car-paint-02-13-2015/

    A really good scene of the future: electric DS floating for the streets. real cool art desing in the city of light.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    If one is a Paris visitor, the last thing one would do is to drive a car.

    Paris, and specially its centre, is a city to be walked or to ride a bike thru, to enjoy.

    And if something is too far away to walk, you’ll ride the Metro, which goes to about everywhere.

    Even if one has to go to far out banlieues, Versailles or CDG airport, the RER trains will take you there.

    So this really only affect the Paris residents.

  • avatar
    AnotherMillenial

    This will be a huge blow to the low-income Parisians that need a car and probably have a car, but can’t afford newer. Obviously, this doesn’t affect well-heeled folks and those who could care less about cars anyway. The 2020 restriction’s are even worse. I hear the new loans/car-sharing “it’s not that bad” argument but try that in America and watch the flack roll-in.

    I understand the desire to remove cars from the streets, but couldn’t they restrict cars on a more technical logic than “your car is old, age by definition is bad”. If they want to make a difference, remove the ALL of the worst polluting cars from ALL years, including the 2016+ MY vehicles that are woefully inefficient but some how exempt because they’re new.

    Ex: For the 2020 rules, a 2010 Prius is not allowed in the city but the 2015 G63 AMG is perfectly fine.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I do agree that age is not always the best metric, but bear in mind that there are a lot of older cars, both French and American, that can be highly efficient while still being high-polluting. With newer cars, it’s not always guaranteed that they’ll be more efficient, but it is a given that they’ll be less polluting, and that seems to be the more important criteria here.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I agree, I wonder if this edict comes from the Hollande administration or something leftover from Sarkozy’s.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Low-income Parisians don’t drive.

      Paris is not Des Moines. Unlike much of the US, Paris has very good public transit. Also unlike much of the US, it has very little parking.

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        Correct. And 10-year-old cars, which are still legal, are not exactly expensive.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        “Low-income Parisians don’t drive.

        Paris is not Des Moines. Unlike much of the US, Paris has very good public transit. Also unlike much of the US, it has very little parking.”
        General rule for the bulk of European cities, so they use public transport , bicycles or mopeds

        • 0 avatar
          Dr.Nick

          Actually the French love of diesels kills heir air quality. Paris and the vast majority of the French cities have worse air quality, often much worse) than the vast majority of American cities, outside of places like LA or industrial towns like Lebanon PA or Youngstown Ohio.

          http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/national/countryprofile/aap_pm_database_may2014.xls?ua=1

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Dr Nick,
            The U.S. has some appalling air quality standards, did not experience the same , “gasping for breath” you get in LA or quite a few other U.S. cities in.Europe

          • 0 avatar
            wmba

            @ RR

            Your “information” is 40 years out of date. A mere trip to the US and then a side trip to London or Paris would show you that, but you prefer to live in your head.

  • avatar
    AnotherMillenial

    Yeah it does come from the mayors office. In 2008 the Sarkozy admin launched higher taxes on polluting cars, a €1000 cash for clunkers-style program and €1000 for buyers of green cars (based on emissions) but nothing as adventurous as this article.

    I understand that older cars may pollute cars much more than newer cars, based on engineering alone, regardless of their fuel efficiency. I may have needed a better choice of words. But what I’m saying is, the Parisian auto rules should be based on how much a car pollutes/it’s impact on the environment, not on abstracts like what year it is, because that doesn’t tell the whole story.

    Here’s a rough example of judging cars based on pollution:
    ’09 Acura TSX (euro Accord) with 80,000mi has 28 mT of CO2e.
    ’15 Audi Q7 with 4,000mi has 30 mT of CO2e.

    Both cars have roughly the same impact on the environment, with the miniscule edge to the sedan. The 6-year old midsize sedan is barely any better for the environment than a full-size luxury SUV of today. But despite having slightly better numbers, the sedan is off the roads in Paris forever come 2020, while the SUV remains. I’m not against the concept of removing polluting cars, just the criteria.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      You don’t understand the differences between various emissions.

      CO2 regulations are efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. The way to do that is to burn less carbon. That means higher MPG for gas and diesel, and more alt fuels.

      Smog is created by particulates and gases such as NOx. Those are reduced through modern emissions equipment. Newer cars will emit far less than older ones, even if the newer cars burn more fuel.

      The mayor wants to control smog. Older cars produce a lot more of it.

      A brand new S-class is producing far less of it than an old 2CV, even though the 2CV is burning less fuel. The S-class does produce more CO2, but that isn’t the issue here.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      You are looking at CO2, but I think that the regs are more focused on NOx and particulates (smog and cancer-causing agents).

  • avatar
    heavy handle

    A few additional details and corrections.
    The ban on pre-1997 cars starts in 2016, not this year. The ban on old cars will not apply on weekends.
    The ban on older trucks and vans starts this summer (pending legislative review).
    The cut-off date will be rolling (not fixed to Jan 1st 1997), with the ultimate goal of limiting it to 10 years.

    Anybody who’s been to Paris recently knows that antique cars are rare downtown. This will get rid of 1990s diesel clunkers that had almost no emission controls.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’s those filthy diesels they once favoured.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    The air in Paris is dreadful. I would think the all the scooters are just as bad or worse for air quality in the city. I could be wrong. Maybe they are addressing that as well.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @AnotherMillenial,
    “Poorer” people that live in the older centre of Paris which spreads across in a 15km radius don’t have cars.

    I have one cousin who lives in this area of Paris, his partner has a good paying job he’s a nurse. They don’t have a car, first you need to park it, second you need to drive it.

    They live in a very comfortable and modern apartment. They do seem happy with the situation. It doesn’t worry me to travel when I visit.

    Like myself, when I go to Paris I just go and buy a Metro ticket that covers all public transport. It’s the easiest way to get around the older inner Paris.

    Another one of my cousin’s lives in the out suburbs of Paris and he drives a Renault from the 80s. This regulation one would think would affect him. Him and his wife travel to work in La Defense everyday and catch the train.

    Even if you are going out for a night you use public transport.

    Having a car doesn’t give you “freedom”. It gives you mobility as you still have that freedom to go where you want.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    “Having a car doesn’t give you “freedom”. It gives you mobility as you still have that freedom to go where you want.”

    Not sure you really are thinking that through. Maybe you should talk to some of your local aircraft owners about how your government has played with their freedoms over the years.

    Stuff like this just adds to the ever growing infringement of your ability to live free and hold private property. If indeed the pollution is an issue, then create rules that fairly attack the problem, not just pick on folks with older vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Landcrusher,
      I don’t see how this impinges on your freedom.

      You still have the opportunity to drive in Paris.

      So, why doesn’t everyone get the same pay? For one person to not have the same as another means one has more freedom? Freedom as you see it appears to be materialistic.

      Actually many who comment on TTAC hold this view. You seem to forget the “other guy”.

      The US is the same. What if you consider it your freedom to drive a vehicle that is unsafe?

      This is no different. In Paris it is assumed that a person driving a higher polluting vehicle is removing the freedom of others.

      You and I don’t have to agree, but I can see the logic.

      I think you view freedom from a selfish perspective.

      Remember what you consider free for you, might reduce someone else’s freedom.

      Once people realise this, then they become full adults.

      The best and most unrealistic way for the French to handle this is to say to the general public; If you think you car is polluting heavily don’t drive it in Paris. Would you heed this?

      No, because it’s your “God” given right to do as you want at the expense of others.

      This isn’t freedom you speak off, it anarchy.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Let me tell you how this is supposed to work. You read what I actually say, comment, and I do the same.

        I quoted you. I responded to that quote. Not the other stuff, thus the quote. I can see this one restriction not being a freedom issue. That’s not the point. Still, you have to look at all the attacks they make on personal transport in total, not just each little one. Modern car ownership IS the most basic freedom of travel issue. Let me regulate it, tax it, take away its utility a little here, then there, whip around the incentives a bit to cause confusion, and then, you figure out its just too much trouble to have a car. That’s when you figure out your freedom is gone and you can’t load up the car and leave cuz, no car.

        Next, this whole thing about my selfishness and God given rights is interesting. Where do you derive it? Please quote. If you can’t find it, please produce the apology you owe me.

        My point is not a right to drive a polluting vehicle. I may not have been totally clear, but I am pretty sure I am not making the impression you are getting. My point is that banning vehicles by year of manufacture is not fair. If I have bought a very clean vehicle, and you then ban it in favor of newer, yet less clean vehicles, how is that fair? Its not. That’s my point. Think high end german gas burner vs cheapo third rate manufactured oil burner built a few years later.

        Lastly, if you don’t understand the necessity of private property to personal freedom, you need to read different stuff. I am sure there are lots of highly regarded BS artists renowned for disconnecting the two things, but they are all BS. Its not a tough concept. No food, no freedom. No property rights, no guarantee of food. Check history of earth, any bit of it.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Landcrusher,
          I still don’t see how removing more highly polluting vehicles off the road impinges on personal freedoms. This to me seems odd, especially when ALL OECD economies have been doing this since the 1970s with the gradual tightening of emission standards.

          There are many regulations that restrict certain vehicles. I do know in Australia B Doubles, semi’s, road trains etc are only allowed to operate on certain routes.

          In Australia there are even bridges that are limiting access to vehicles over a certain weight.

          This is similar to limiting access to vehicles that emit certain levels of pollutants.

          Look at how vehicles have speed limiters in them. If you don’t like the speed limiters what do you do? You buy another vehicle. The same goes here. If you want to drive in Paris you buy a vehicle buy what is suitable.

          Many states in the US have to have vehicles tested for emissions. If they fail you can’t drive them on public roads.

          Even the US has the most stringent technical barriers for motor vehicle access on your public roads. Many of you don’t consider this impinging on your freedoms.

          What’s the difference?

          No, this doesn’t impinge on anyones freedom. Do you register your vehicle? Isn’t this an impost on your freedom?

          I’m sorry Landcrusher, I don’t really see the improving of standards as limiting freedom.

          • 0 avatar
            Dr.Nick

            The difference is that in the US, if the vehicle was legal in the year it was sold, it is still legal. Even in California. As far as I know, there has never been a scheme in any state that limits access to a place based on vehicle age or forces the scrapping of a car because of emissions (assuming the car is operating within normal limits and not malfunctioning)

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Apology? Quote?

            Your facts are in error.

            Let me go extreme on my last try. Would you think it an attack on your freedom if tomorrow your own vehicles were illegal due to pollution? Year of Manufacture? Origin?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Freedom isn’t free.

  • avatar
    Joss

    I should think summer spells of burning cars in Paris – old or new is the bigger polluter…

    So Paris should see more dented, newer cars. Wondered what those C4 Cactus panels were for.

    I wonder who would enforce. Paris City Police probably see it beneath their nose. Gendarmerie not their patch.

  • avatar
    wmba

    London has rules as well, and hot discussion on the topic of NOx.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/11/boris-johnson-plans-cut-london-air-pollution-too-little-too-late

    So, it’s hardly surprising that Paris is trying to do something as well.

    There’s nothing quite like visiting Hyde Park on a Sunday afternoon listening to the soapboxers complain about anything and everything in terms that would cause a riot in the US or Canada, while breathing in the bouquet of petrochemical smog. My eyes have a reaction, the lids puff up and close. It’s the only thing I’m aware I’m allergic to. Good old NOx. What great stuff.

  • avatar
    Mr. K

    From the cited story

    “A series of rolling restrictions are expected to begin this summer, when all coaches, buses and lorries registered before 30 September 2001 are banned from central Paris. However, they are expected to be able to use the Perpherique, the giant ring road that encircles the city centre.

    Also on this summer’s hit list are cars registered before 31 December 1996 and vans and light trucks registered before 30 September 1997. ”

    Gee barring very old vehicles from the CBD. ¡Quelle horreur!

    Banning classic cars?

    How many classic American cars does one see in Manhattan, San Francisco, or Chicago?

    Getting old cars off the street in large urban centers is more about getting beat 1990’s Pg 205’s (think a escort sized car that in France serves the role of the Taurus) off the road – the relatively few DS and Cv’s left are of little import.

    Older cars also have less safety equipment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g

    Yeah a 1990’s car is much better then a 1955 Chevy, but a modern car is much better then a 1990’s car. No matter how health care is funded the general public, not just the driving public pay costs associated with vehicular injury – fire and rescue, EMS, roadway repair, congestion associated with crashes, lost income, lost use of assets damaged/destroyed in accidents and medical costs.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      Also from the story, ” The restrictions will roll forward through 2020, when cars registered after 2011 and motorcycles registered after this July will be the only ones allowed within.”

      At that point, those cars will be about ten years old. If you can’t see a slippery slope here, you are blind. 1996 was chosen because that year seems more reasonable, but then the precedent is set to start the squeeze. The safety argument can be used to support any restriction by any despot. Luckily, most Americans still see through that ruse.

      I could write a book on how to get rid of personal transportation based on the way General Aviation has been destroyed. It’s a death of a thousand cuts.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        You’re hilarious. Have you been to France?

        They strike and demonstrate for just about everything. Americans stroke their guns, then do nothing, while the French actually fill the streets and frighten their politicians into action.

        The last smog-related vehicle ban that the mayor attempted lasted for all of one day. The French conservative and automotive press are already griping about this. Chances are good that the law will fail for lack of enforcement. In a city in which people routinely ignore their parking tickets, I doubt that this is going to do much of anything.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Even though they’re not saying it, the changing views on diesels have less to do with smog than the cancer than comes from unfiltered diesel fumes and particulates, its impact on healthcare, not to mention harm the unborn.


Recent Comments

  • speedlaw: under threat of the BAN hammer
  • tankinbeans: The angry Pokemons; you gotta catch them all.
  • brn: To ajla’s point, I would also like to see a review of the base version. It’s a sub $60K performance...
  • Inside Looking Out: How they could not develop working transmission in 8 years (since 2011)? Let me guess –...
  • MKizzy: If you think the resale values of these permanently defective Foci and Fiestas is bad now? Just wait. The...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States