Banning Old Cars

[Dreadnaught]

Read an interesting article on the Mayor of Paris trying to ban cars built before 1997. This has people with older classic cars, as well as poor people with old cars, very upset.

I can understand the environmental benefits. But something just seems off about this. Is it that we don't like the idea of buying a car that's legal at the time it was manufactured, then having a government decide 40 years later that it's illegal? Is is that we like classic cars and don't like the idea that they can just be banned outright?

Or is this whole idea totally necessary and should be adapted nationwide/worldwide?

Premature Retirement? Old-Car Owners Bristle at Proposed Ban
By AURELIEN BREEDEN
PARIS



BY proposing to reduce air pollution by banning vehicles made before 1997, Mayor Bertrand Delanoë has angered vintage car owners and motorist groups and raised concerns among those who say they cannot afford new cars.

Mr. Delanoë’s proposal is part of a wider push by local authorities to comply with European regulations and establish a low-emission zone around metropolitan Paris, including many suburbs, by 2014. The plan would extend the mayor’s efforts to make the city more pedestrian-friendly by reducing the number of cars. These efforts include introducing the Vélib’ bicycle rental program, establishing the Autolib’ electric-car rental system and cutting vehicle traffic along the banks of the Seine.

Mr. Delanoë has been mayor since 2001, but will not run again in 2014. “In Paris, where polluting industries have nearly disappeared, cars are the main source of pollution today,” he said in a statement presenting the antipollution plan to city councilors.

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.

The mayor’s critics say he is doing everything he can, in his last years in office, to discourage driving. Among the disgruntled are collectors, who fear they won’t be able to take their vintage cars for a spin.

“For me the 2CV is part of French heritage, of Parisian heritage,” said Xavier Audran, 44, who lives in the 20th arrondissement and owns a Citroën CX, several 2CVs and a motorbike — all of which would fall under the proposed ban. “I wouldn’t be able to leave my home with my vehicles.”

The ban would apply to private and commercial vehicles that would be older than 17 years in 2014 and therefore do not comply with existing European standards for the tailpipe emissions that cause smog.

A spokesman for the city estimated that 367,000 cars would be affected. Also targeted are heavy trucks older than 18 years and motorcycles older than 10.

The plan to set up low-emission zones here and in other volunteer cities was initiated by the previous center-right government. But the current French ecology minister, Delphine Batho, said in September that the plan had been rushed through to avoid European sanctions and needed to be overhauled.

A ministerial council in January is to flesh out the legislative details of the low-emission zone and the old-car ban, which the mayor does not have the power to enforce. But Mr. Delanoë, a prominent Socialist, has strong allies in the national government.

Other measures in the antipollution plan include applying new speed limits on the beltway that surrounds the city and in the city itself.

“This measure goes in the right direction, because these vehicles pollute much more than recent vehicles, especially for nitrogen oxide and diesel exhaust particles,” said Karine Léger, assistant director at Airparif, an independent organization that monitors air quality in the Paris region. She said that car traffic had been cut by 25 percent over the last decade and that air quality had improved.

Julien Bargeton, deputy mayor in charge of transportation, said the city needed to move past the car. “In a dense city, the car can’t be the favored transportation mode,” he said. “There is room for cars in the city of tomorrow, but they can’t take up all the room, as they do today, with public spaces that are widely reserved to car traffic, even though 60 percent of Parisians don’t own a vehicle.”

But opponents of the proposal argue that it will disproportionately affect poorer suburban households unable to replace the old cars they use to commute to Paris. They say the mayor’s proposal to couple the ban with social support measures — like a free six-month Autolib’ subscription or a cash for clunkers program — isn’t realistic.

Jean-François Legaret, a center-right city councilor and the mayor of the city’s first arrondissement, said a cash for clunkers program wouldn’t fall under the mayor’s control. “And the “Autolib’ doesn’t offer the same flexibility of use as a private vehicle,” he added.

Pierre Chasseray, director general of 40 Million Motorists, an auto club with 320,000 members, agreed. “There has to be an economic incentive,” he said, arguing that any cash for clunkers rebate should apply to used cars as well as new models.

Motorist lobbies say the city authorities are intentionally trying to make it impossible for cars to circulate freely and fluidly here. “The mayor is betting that one day people will be so disgusted with their car that they won’t use it anymore,” Mr. Chasseray said. “But he is completely wrong — we will always need vehicles.”

Other cities have age restrictions on cars, including Berlin, where for two years diesel vehicles have been outlawed if they do not meet emission regulations enacted in 2005. In Singapore since 1990, residents have to bid to buy a Certificate of Entitlement, which enables them to own a motor vehicle for 10 years, after which they are forced to scrap the car, export it or pay to extend the certificate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/au...posed-ban.html

[RandBlade]

This is a boon to car manufacturers, not the environment.

If you're concerned about the environment then set environmental targets - many old cars are more efficient than some newer ones. If you raise the bar that way, old cars (and newer ones) may fall under the bar and have to be either upgraded or retired but at least then there's a reason.

This sort of law should be for cities more than nationwide too, where air pollution is a more serious concern. On a global level lets not forget the pollution emitted while producing a new car, but that doesn't add to the smog of a city.

Vintage cars should never be penalised and are a legitimate hobby/interest for many. My father once got at auction and repaired a vintage car that he maintained and loved for quite a while - it wasn't driven for transportation reasons. I believe from memory it was a 1928 Super Six sedan, he loved talking about how it was the same car type Elliot Ness drove in The Untouchables. I went for a ride in it a few times in the countryside, it was like going into a bit of history. No environmental reasons to stop that.

[Ominous Gamer]

I love this idea. Except it needs to be a little less restrictive. I'd say 1987. 25 years is when most of the US' ban on imports expire and anything helps in getting more foreign antiques into the states


On a more serious note, there are a couple of states that have already pulled this stunt. They used to have a show or display category for older imports, like the Porsche 959, but have either repelled or allowed those exemptions to expire, making those cars illegal to drive.

many old cars are more efficient than some newer ones.

Many vs some? Source? And I hope you don't stop at just mpg.

[Dreadnaught]

The manufacturing issue is legit, especially given the plastics that go into new cars. Though I wonder if the only-in-city thing becomes a slippery slope, no? I mean no one is using a 1928 Super Six for commuting, so why must cityfolk be uniquely unable to enjoy and maintain a classic car?

[RandBlade]

That's like asking why have a Congestion Charge scheme only in a city. Cities have problems if you don't tackle air pollution that anywhere else doesn't.

[Veldan Rath]

Great, more ideas for Nanny Bloomberg.

[RandBlade]

If you're just going based on an arbitrary year stunt it takes nothing into account about the wide variance within the market each year. If you draw a line at 1997 for example I'd like to know why a 1996 Ford Focus is beyond the pale, but a 1998 Humvee is OK?

[Ominous Gamer]

it takes nothing into account about the wide variance within the market each year.

but it does according to the article 97 was the year of some sort of smog emissions guidelines, this provides a known minimum. so we do know that from 97 on all cars meet those guidelines. I don't know why you're comparing a compact to a military vehicle* (would an H1 even fit on Paris streets?), but there were stricter emission laws in 97, so it could very well be the case that a hummer would be less polluting if it passed the 97 guidelines. A lot of small cars cut corners on emissions because their smaller engines sort of flew under the radar for efficiency and emission testing. Hell at one point Honda cars didn't have catalytic converters.

You can see the same problem now when comparing motorcycles to cars. Bikes have a higher efficiency, but are far more polluting than cars, like 400-700% more polluting.


*Consumer Hummers didn't land til 03.

[RandBlade]

but it does according to the article 97 was the year of some sort of smog emissions guidelines, this provides a known minimum. so we do know that from 97 on all cars meet those guidelines. I don't know why you're comparing a compact to a military vehicle* (would an H1 even fit on Paris streets?), but there were stricter emission laws in 97, so it could very well be the case that a hummer would be less polluting if it passed the 97 guidelines. A lot of small cars cut corners on emissions because their smaller engines sort of flew under the radar for efficiency and emission testing. Hell at one point Honda cars didn't have catalytic converters.

You can see the same problem now when comparing motorcycles to cars. Bikes have a higher efficiency, but are far more polluting than cars, like 400-700% more polluting.


*Consumer Hummers didn't land til 03.

OK switch humvee for whatever you want to switch it with as an example. As you've pointed out with bikes which reinforces what I've been saying, the exact motor-vehicle that you run has a massive variance upon what type of emissions it puts out. Also for older vehicles of equal importance is not just those but how well-maintained the vehicle is and what parts have been used for replacements in servicing.

If you put a threshold and require testing then that sorts out the vehicles based upon what really happens. This could and should happen at the same time as the already required vehicle inspections

[Hazir]

A little bit of background here; cities in Europe have been set targets to reduce fine dust levels. Since they have very little to target left of course they would target the last relevant source of it they can find; the car. Every significant cut they achieve opens up space for developement. Without reductions a lot of their projects can not get approval.

If you care about the potential damage of secundary smoking you really have no arguments against the target of reduction of fine dust concentrations.

[RandBlade]

I agree with the notion of targeting reduction of emissions - but I don't agree with doing so based purely on the age of a car which is a very arbitrary mechanic to do so. There should be a threshold that is OK or not OK and that threshold should be set upon the cars own emissions - not a year.

[Hazir]

I would also like to point out there is a world of difference between a 17 year old car and a vintage car. The vintage cars shown on the picture are of the DS line, which went out of production in 1976.

Vintage cars are cared for with love and taken out for a spin occasionally which is not of a huge concern in the bigger picture wrt pollution. 17 year old clunkers are typically still used daily and are a real pollution concern.

[Ominous Gamer]

so you want yearly(ish) emissions testing? for a single city?

even when its state wide its a huge waste of government spending. you of all people to support such an idea...

[RandBlade]

so you want yearly(ish) emissions testing? for a single city?

even when its state wide its a huge waste of government spending. you of all people to support such an idea...

The testing already happens. An old car must already by law undergo emissions testing as well as other safety and security checks.

Given that the mechanism for routine checks is already there (it's annual here in the UK already, biennial in France) then integrating this emissions test into the existing tests (if its not already) would be efficient.

I "of all people" have always supported vehicle inspections. An unsafe car is a deathtrap waiting to happen. While ensuring its safe, it's also efficient to test for safe environmental emissions.

[Loki]

I fail to see why this can't be done through taxation (levy a tax that increases as MPH decreases)...

[Dreadnaught]

That's like asking why have a Congestion Charge scheme only in a city. Cities have problems if you don't tackle air pollution that anywhere else doesn't.

I agree with the notion of targeting reduction of emissions - but I don't agree with doing so based purely on the age of a car which is a very arbitrary mechanic to do so. There should be a threshold that is OK or not OK and that threshold should be set upon the cars own emissions - not a year.

I would also like to point out there is a world of difference between a 17 year old car and a vintage car. The vintage cars shown on the picture are of the DS line, which went out of production in 1976.

Vintage cars are cared for with love and taken out for a spin occasionally which is not of a huge concern in the bigger picture wrt pollution. 17 year old clunkers are typically still used daily and are a real pollution concern.

I don't see a comparison to congestion charges, as those are basically like a toll that treats each car as an equal unit.

But just so I understand what Rand is saying -- are you suggesting each car be given a range of tolerable emissions based on when it was manufactured?

While I think that sounds fair, I suspect there are some practical difficulties. Especially in the vintage car space, because many countries didn't have emissions checks at all until the latter half of the 20th century. So the 1966 vintage car I have wasn't designed with any emissions in mind. At least in most of the US, this means these older cars are "grandfathered" to not have to deal with emissions requirements.

I think that grandfathering makes total sense, but doesn't address the issue at hand, does it?

Hazir brings up a good point that the target of this really isn't vintage cars. I guess my question is how does one legally distinguish between a vintage car and just an old daily driver? I know insurance companies do, but it's hard to imagine a not-insane government standard...

I fail to see why this can't be done through taxation (levy a tax that increases as MPH decreases)...

Did you mean MPG decreases?

[Loki]

Did you mean MPG decreases?

Sorry, yes.

[Hazir]

AFAIK in Holland the rule is that to qualify for 'vintage' the car has to be at least 30 years old, and to not be subject to standard rules you can't drive more than a certain number of km a year with it. Daily driving is very much discouraged.

And I have to point out; this is not really about congestion; it's about air pollution which Paris HAS to reduce if it wants to avoid being fined and/or severe restrictions on its projects for the city. You may have noted they plan to cut off the route along the Seine river alltogether; that's very obviously an attempt to reduce emissions within the city limits.

FYI people DIE from this air pollution in large numbers (3,200 a year in NYC). There is no actual safe lower limit; limits maintained are arbitrary and merely intended to offer some protection while not entirely stiffling the economy.

[RandBlade]

I don't see a comparison to congestion charges, as those are basically like a toll that treats each car as an equal unit.

It was an analogy not a direct equivalence. Besides in most schemes I know of they don't. Either way though, the point is that the major cities already act differently to elsewhere.

But just so I understand what Rand is saying -- are you suggesting each car be given a range of tolerable emissions based on when it was manufactured?

Actually I'd rather give a uniform range of emissions and those that pass are OK (regardless of age) and those that fail are not (again regardless of age). Maybe (just maybe) with exemptions for genuine vintages.

While I think that sounds fair, I suspect there are some practical difficulties. Especially in the vintage car space, because many countries didn't have emissions checks at all until the latter half of the 20th century. So the 1966 vintage car I have wasn't designed with any emissions in mind. At least in most of the US, this means these older cars are "grandfathered" to not have to deal with emissions requirements.

I think that grandfathering makes total sense, but doesn't address the issue at hand, does it?

If a car doesn't meet the standards then there's two options - grandfather the car or retrofit whatever filters etc are required if need be.

Hazir brings up a good point that the target of this really isn't vintage cars. I guess my question is how does one legally distinguish between a vintage car and just an old daily driver? I know insurance companies do, but it's hard to imagine a not-insane government standard...

That shouldn't be too difficult, most governments already do for different reasons. The UK defines classic cars as pre-1973 for tax purposes, most US states have definitions.

AFAIK in Holland the rule is that to qualify for 'vintage' the car has to be at least 30 years old, and to not be subject to standard rules you can't drive more than a certain number of km a year with it. Daily driving is very much discouraged.

And I have to point out; this is not really about congestion; it's about air pollution which Paris HAS to reduce if it wants to avoid being fined and/or severe restrictions on its projects for the city. You may have noted they plan to cut off the route along the Seine river alltogether; that's very obviously an attempt to reduce emissions within the city limits.

[GGT]

AFAIK in Holland the rule is that to qualify for 'vintage' the car has to be at least 30 years old, and to not be subject to standard rules you can't drive more than a certain number of km a year with it. Daily driving is very much discouraged.

That's how PA does emissions testing. Vintage cars are usually exempt based on age -- like a Model T that's only driven during parades -- or grandfathered under "Antique" or "Classic" with limited mileage per year allowed. That mileage is checked during annual State Inspections. So, if someone's been driving an old clunker as their daily main transportation, and exceeded "Antique" miles, they can fail the Inspection and/or be required to pass full emissions testing.

Since we have so many varied state requirements, there are still loopholes. Some people will buy an older car in a border state and register it there (if allowed). They may pay more for license plates, or a state excise tax, but won't have emission requirements at all. Some companies are big on that loophole....and will register company cars in the state with lowest standards. Kind of defeats the purpose of getting polluters off the road, but there it is.

[Dreadnaught]

I have doubts about those estimates, but I'm not opposed to the goal. Interestingly, the region around NY has hit an interesting point where our power plant emissions are now below the cap-and-trade targets set by their states about six years ahead of schedule. So now people can't figure out if the goals were too easy or if they should lower them even more.

When it comes to the Paris plan, it seems like the focus should be more on reducing overall car traffic versus discriminating between types of cars. Seems a lot less painless than outright banning certain types of cars.

[RandBlade]

I have doubts about those estimates, but I'm not opposed to the goal. Interestingly, the region around NY has hit an interesting point where our power plant emissions are now below the cap-and-trade targets set by their states about six years ahead of schedule. So now people can't figure out if the goals were too easy or if they should lower them even more.

When it comes to the Paris plan, it seems like the focus should be more on reducing overall car traffic versus discriminating between types of cars. Seems a lot less painless than outright banning certain types of cars.

Why?

If the aim is to reduce air particulate problems then it seems to make sense to ban cars that emit too many particulates, rather than target all cars (even those low/no emissions) indiscriminately.

My problem is that there ought to be a better way to do it than just age. I've not heard any reason why this can't fall under the existing testing already done so its done by the cars own emissions accurately.

[Hazir]

Why?

If the aim is to reduce air particulate problems then it seems to make sense to ban cars that emit too many particulates, rather than target all cars (even those low/no emissions) indiscriminately.

My problem is that there ought to be a better way to do it than just age. I've not heard any reason why this can't fall under the existing testing already done so its done by the cars own emissions accurately.

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

[Dreadnaught]

Why?

If the aim is to reduce air particulate problems then it seems to make sense to ban cars that emit too many particulates, rather than target all cars (even those low/no emissions) indiscriminately.

My problem is that there ought to be a better way to do it than just age. I've not heard any reason why this can't fall under the existing testing already done so its done by the cars own emissions accurately.

The 3,200 is from the NYC government, and consistent with other information. If you want to reduce the emissions it's not effective to ban cars that have sufficient filters. You target cars that actually pollute.

I guess the issue we're not really addressing is what is the relative difference in emissions between a well-maintained 1966 car and a well-maintained 2006 car. Beyond that, which one gets the most average driving.

In case it wasn't obvious before, I also don't trust a number like that from the NYC government. It seems extraordinarily hard to calculate, and the person who bothers to calculate it is probably ideologically biased towards force-feeding their model until it delivers a large number.

Once again, none of this means I don't support the overall goal we're talking about here. But I have concerns about proportionality and the principle of banning an older varient of something that was completely legal when it was sold.

[Nessus]

In case it wasn't obvious before, I also don't trust a number like that from the NYC government. It seems extraordinarily hard to calculate, and the person who bothers to calculate it is probably ideologically biased towards force-feeding their model until it delivers a large number.

Any figure calculated that doesn't fit my pre-conceived notions is suspect and probably false!

Once again, none of this means I don't support the overall goal we're talking about here. But I have concerns about proportionality and the principle of banning an older varient of something that was completely legal when it was sold.

So let's keep on using leaded gasoline, and painting our faces with cyanide-ridden make-up! Hell, let's use alarm clocks with radium in, that was completely legal at some point! (Pro-tip: Do not end up being one of the girls whose jaws melt off due to manufacturing radium clocks)

[Hazir]

I guess the issue we're not really addressing is what is the relative difference in emissions between a well-maintained 1966 car and a well-maintained 2006 car. Beyond that, which one gets the most average driving.

In case it wasn't obvious before, I also don't trust a number like that from the NYC government. It seems extraordinarily hard to calculate, and the person who bothers to calculate it is probably ideologically biased towards force-feeding their model until it delivers a large number.

Once again, none of this means I don't support the overall goal we're talking about here. But I have concerns about proportionality and the principle of banning an older varient of something that was completely legal when it was sold.

They specified they used the same methodology that is used to calculate smoking and obesity related deaths by the CDC.

I may also point out that cigarettes are totally legal at their point of sale; still using them is subject to very stringent regulation. What is being banned is excessive and harmful pollution. It may interest you that excessively loud airplanes can be sold but not used legally.

[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.

[Ominous Gamer]

rather than target all cars (even those low/no emissions) indiscriminately.

Which pre 1997 cars fall into this category?

My reference to the motorcycle comes into play here. They don't fall under the same guidelines as 4+ wheeled cars. Small cars with high efficiency engines used to qualify to be exempt in similar manners. As long as the MPG was high enough, they could pollute like a muthafucka. Basically it comes back to Hazir's last post.

[Hazir]

I have doubts about those estimates, but I'm not opposed to the goal. Interestingly, the region around NY has hit an interesting point where our power plant emissions are now below the cap-and-trade targets set by their states about six years ahead of schedule. So now people can't figure out if the goals were too easy or if they should lower them even more.

When it comes to the Paris plan, it seems like the focus should be more on reducing overall car traffic versus discriminating between types of cars. Seems a lot less painless than outright banning certain types of cars.

The 3,200 is from the NYC government, and consistent with other information. If you want to reduce the emissions it's not effective to ban cars that have sufficient filters. You target cars that actually pollute.