backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by Spivonious.. on Jul 19 at 3:32 PM

Parliament debates a crushing new requirement for European automobiles.

The European Parliament is set to begin debate on a far-reaching proposal to reduce the carbon footprint of European vehicles.  The new plan is both large and far-reaching, but the most shocking part is a requirement to ban within six years all vehicles with a top speed of over 162km/h (101 mph). At a stroke, this would eliminate the manufacture and sale of every sports car in Europe, along with larger, more powerful sedans. The plan also includes a requirement that carmakers spend 20% of all advertising to warn consumers of the CO2 emissions of their products.

The plan's author is Chris Davies, a member of Parliament and spokesman for the EC's committee on the environment and public health. Mr. Davies official position is, "cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel efficient and produce too many emissions."  This of course ignores the fact that the fastest sports cars are designed as light as possible and actually weigh much less than the average family car.

The plan is known as the Carbon Allowance Reduction System, or CARS for short... apparently in the hopes that a catchy, easy-to-remember name will help sell it.

Mr. Davies is also working on a new labeling scheme for Europe, whereby all goods and services purchased in Europe-- everything from an airline ticket to a packet of cornflakes-- will be required to be labeled with an official "carbon statement"-- the result of a complex and expensive accounting of the total emissions generated during manufacture, shipping, and use. He tosses off concerns over the cost of the project as unwarranted piffle.

Europe has long been known as home to some of the planet's fastest sports cars-- as well as its fastest public motorways.  Will one stroke of a pen change all that? Contact your local MEP to find out.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What if they said no?
By rdeegvainl on 7/11/2007 1:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
I know it would never happen, but what if auto manufacturers just said no? and stopped making auto's for europe?




RE: What if they said no?
By Spivonious on 7/11/2007 2:23:40 PM , Rating: 4
Then Europe would have much safer streets? ;)

I don't know; I was there for two weeks and never set foot in a car or bus. I somehow managed to get from London to Paris to Stuttgart to Wurzburg to Rothenburg to Munich and back to London again without ever needing a car or bus. I wish the U.S. had such available public transportation.


RE: What if they said no?
By rdeegvainl on 7/11/2007 2:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
A good public transportation system would require too much to get started, and our government doesn't have that kind of money available (it is there, but been given to pet projects of someone) unless we implemented some sort of transport tax, i don't think it will happen.


RE: What if they said no?
By Spivonious on 7/11/2007 2:52:14 PM , Rating: 1
I would definitely pay an extra tax if it meant that I could go anywhere in the country in a fast, competitively-priced way. The framework is already there, but it's owned by the freight companies. We need to get it transferred over to make passenger traffic the priority.


RE: What if they said no?
By Ringold on 7/12/2007 2:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
None of that 'framework' would be very useful, I don't imagine. First, it's not the same kind of track used in all these high speed rail projects we hear about. Second, it's heavily utilized by industry -- those "freight companies" are getting fuel to powerplants, ethanol to refineries and end-users (yep, we'd need an entirely new pipeline system to really use ethanol), materials to factories and so on.

Plus, as Central Florida is about to notice, passenger rail is absolutely useless when most the population has to drive 15-20min to get to a station to take a train to the other side of town, at which point they would still be a few miles from anything at all interesting. What, fiddle around waiting for buses? Meanwhile, instead of being crammed like cattle in a vehicle with a big bulls-eye painted on the side for terrorists, I and most American's could more effectively be chillin' on the highway getting to their destination faster and more comfortably in a car.

Some cities, like NYC, have a legitimate need for public transport, and they've got it. The rest of the US? I dont see it. yet.


RE: What if they said no?
By jacarte8 on 7/12/2007 3:02:36 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, excellent idea... let's take freight rails away from the companies that own them and give the rails and land to Amtrack... excellent idea.

That way we reduce car traffic by putting more tractor-trailors on the road.

moron

What we need is more reliable rail service between major cities. There is not a reliable rail line in and out of Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, or Norfolk (the region where I live). I live in one of the smaller places where Amtrack happens to pass through, but the delays on the once-daily trains can be anywhere from 2-6 hours, thereby making passenger rail completely useless.


RE: What if they said no?
By B on 7/12/2007 4:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Have you been working under the tutelage of Hugo Chavez?


RE: What if they said no?
By ElFenix on 7/16/2007 10:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would definitely pay an extra tax if it meant that I could go anywhere in the country in a fast, competitively-priced way.

airport taxes not enough for you?


RE: What if they said no?
By joker380 on 7/16/2007 2:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
so wrong, we have money to spend on wars but not on our own public transportation. Lol.


RE: What if they said no?
By BigT383 on 7/17/2007 3:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, uh... No, we don't have money to spend on wars.


RE: What if they said no?
By Lonyo on 7/11/2007 2:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
Travel between cities without using cars or buses. Wow, who would have thought.
Now move to the countryside in Europe, where there are no buses. Europe may have reasonable transportation in heavily urban areas, but outside of those areas it's pretty damned poor, much like the US (afaik)


RE: What if they said no?
By Spivonious on 7/11/2007 3:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
Rothenburg has about 6000 people in it. Not exactly a "heavily urban area." And it's definitely out in the country.

I'm not saying I want a train station in every village, but at least make it possible for me to go from my town to the closest major city without taking twice as long as driving it.


RE: What if they said no?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/11/2007 3:12:21 PM , Rating: 4
> "Rothenburg has about 6000 people in it. Not exactly a "heavily urban area."

The Amtrack route from New York to Montreal stops in Rhinebeck, a town about half the size of Rothenburg. Which proves only that train tracks-- both in Europe and the US-- have to occasionally pass through lightly populated areas to serve denser ones.


RE: What if they said no?
By erikejw on 7/11/2007 8:40:49 PM , Rating: 3
In Sweden that is the least populated part of Europe per km2 we have the best public transportation system.

If you live in a town with less than 500 persons it might be a problem but then of course cars is availble.

Where I come from we have 5000 persons and we have bus lines that trable to the nearest major city for 60 times a day and from there you can go by train to every European city or to any airport in the 5 nearest countries( at least).

That one single parliament member is suggesting something doesn't mean it will happen.

Think about what might happen if the 1 or 2 persons(in the senat) that was opposed to the Iraqi oil war had their way, just kidding, that was 3 years ago.


RE: What if they said no?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/11/2007 9:18:57 PM , Rating: 3
> "In Sweden that is the least populated part of Europe per km2 we have the best public transportation system"

Sweden may have a low overall population density, but it's population is highly clustered. More than 80% of the nation lives in an urban area, one of the highest percentages in the world, in fact. That makes it easy for public transportation to work.


RE: What if they said no?
By Sulphademus on 7/12/2007 10:07:53 AM , Rating: 3
We have the density in certain areas. Most specifically, the northeast (DC to Boston) would be the best area for this, and there all ready is a lot of Amtrak lines in this area. The problem with the European system is that its too slow for our tastes* and is pretty pricy.

*We would rather fly from Baltimore to NYC (a college buddy of mine did this) than take a train. The flight is 45 minutes. A train ride is ~3.5 hours. Of course the flight time doesnt account for 2 hours you need to spend at the airport itself...


RE: What if they said no?
By lumbergeek on 7/12/2007 10:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
Having travelled in Sweden (I'm a Canadian), I can attest to the exceptional rail system Sweden has. One can get around even in very lightly populated northern Sweden without any difficulty at all.


RE: What if they said no?
By Hare on 7/12/2007 10:56:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Sweden that is the least populated part of Europe per km2 we have the best public transportation system.

Population density per square kilometer
Sweden: 20
Finland: 17


RE: What if they said no?
By jacarte8 on 7/12/2007 3:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sweden and Finland are in the same part of Europe...


RE: What if they said no?
By josmala on 7/14/2007 8:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
And Finland has excellent public transport also.


RE: What if they said no?
By jstchilln on 7/11/2007 3:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know; I was there for two weeks and never set foot in a car or bus. I somehow managed to get from London to Paris to Stuttgart to Wurzburg to Rothenburg to Munich and back to London again without ever needing a car or bus. I wish the U.S. had such available public transportation.


Give me a break, this is like comparing apples to onions. We have so many differences between the two countries such as size and the wide open spaces of the U.S. that I dont know how to do an accurate comparison.
I saw a study several years ago that showed the U.S. did spend more on public transportation than Europe and that due to the size of our nation the results were negligible.
Shame on Germany for giving us the idea for the interstate HWY system.


RE: What if they said no?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/11/2007 3:37:07 PM , Rating: 3
> "I somehow managed to get from London to Paris to Stuttgart...without ever needing a car or bus. I wish the U.S. had such available public transportation.

Having lived in both the US and Europe, I'd like to offer my opinion. For mid-distance travelling between urban centers and/or major tourism sites, Europe's rail system is incomparable. I wish the US had such a system.

Living there is a bit of a different story. Carrying large amounts of purchases is extremely inconvenient when you live one train station transfers, two bus transfers, and a long walk from the shopping centre.

You tend to buy everything in small quantities. The same amount overall, you just shop much more often. Shopping for your food every single day is quaint for a week or two, but it gets old fast. Carrying a new stereo or 50 lb. box of china home becomes a test of personal endurance. Of course, larger purchases can be delivered, but waiting two days for anything you buy larger than a pack of cigarettes is a bit of a drag also. When you're sick and have to go to the doctor, dragging yourself through a few stations isn't very pleasant either.

This is why the EU is, despite its excellent rail system, still the largest auto market in the world, in terms of total vehicles. Because public transportation is very convenient for some purposes, and much less so for others. Europeans who can afford cars still buy them and drive them.


RE: What if they said no?
By kenji4life on 7/11/2007 4:33:31 PM , Rating: 3
Living in the US and Japan, I have to agree. This is the same situtation in Japan as well. That's why I choose to live here in the states. For all of the things that make Japan a great country to live in, I can't see myself leaving the states to go back. To quote my mom: "After commuting 1-2 hours daily on the train to work, I'll gladly commute the same time/distance in a car here in the states. The rail although great at times is also a hassle."

We own 1 car and 3 mopeds in Japan, and 5 cars here in the states. Personally if I had the chance, I'd go for an electric bike like the Brammo Enertia if I could afford it right now. It'd be great for around town, to and from the Uni, and to and from the girlfriend's house. Then a TLC diesel or similar would be great for anything I can't do with a backpack on the bike.


RE: What if they said no?
By TomZ on 7/11/2007 6:22:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't know; I was there for two weeks and never set foot in a car or bus. I somehow managed to get from London to Paris to Stuttgart to Wurzburg to Rothenburg to Munich and back to London again without ever needing a car or bus.

When I visit my business colleagues in Germany, they are exclusively driving their cars to meetings between cities in Germany and France. Just as we do here in the U.S. I think it is because, while public transport is available, it is generally less convenient and less efficient time-wise than driving. This is the same reason that public transport in the U.S. is not real well developed.


RE: What if they said no?
By Hare on 7/12/2007 11:05:24 AM , Rating: 3
Germany has the best roads in the world so travelling with a car is a joy (I love the autobahn). Germany also has excellent city to city railway connections that are a lot faster than travelling by car.

The automotive culture is strong in Germany. Volkswager, Mercedes, BMW, Audi etc. In addition to this, no one can deny the freedom that a car gives. Don't have to worry about departure times, don't have to worry about waiting for a connecting train etc...


RE: What if they said no?
By Polynikes on 7/15/2007 2:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
Geographically speaking, it would be ridiculously expensive to set up a national or even just an interstate public transportation system. Europe is small, that's why their public transportation is so effective.


RE: What if they said no?
By Spivonious on 7/19/2007 3:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the U.S. is 3537441 square miles and Europe is 3837000 square miles.

They have a bit easier time because they're a bunch of small countries rather than a bunch of small states so there's less federal government red tape to go through.


RE: What if they said no?
By Googer on 7/11/2007 2:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot see how this is much of a problem. The high cost of those cars keeps them from becoming anything common. Very few people own them so their impact is rather small. EU, lets not be stupid by banning fast cars and at the same time hurting car development and your economies.


RE: What if they said no?
By smitty3268 on 7/11/2007 3:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
I know it would never happen, but what if auto manufacturers just said no? and stopped making auto's for europe?

Then some new startup would say "Holy ****! Yippee!!!" and start selling cars to a 400 million person market, without any competition at all...


RE: What if they said no?
By erikejw on 7/11/2007 8:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
"I know it would never happen, but what if auto manufacturers just said no? and stopped making auto's for europe?"

That might be hard to do since the majority of the car makers come from Europe.


RE: What if they said no?
By rmaharaj on 7/11/2007 9:50:08 PM , Rating: 3
This won't require banning any vehicles at all - manufacturers will simply add an electronic speed limiter to prevent them from exceeding 101mph. This is in place in many cars on the market today and like any electronic restriction, it is easily hacked.


RE: What if they said no?
By Merry on 7/12/2007 10:00:37 AM , Rating: 2
Would never happen.

The politician in question happens to be the representative for Europe from the area where I live. Being a member of the Lib Dems I got given a questionaire to fill in regarding this policy. I basically disagreed with all of his proposals as they are counter productive and a waste of time, however it would appear that the rest of the membership didnt, provided he actually listened to the results, which I very much doubt as I only got the questionaire a week ago. There simply isnt enough time to get all of the results together.

Suffice to say I am no longer a member of the party. They have gone too far on a frankly bonkers policy.

Also, to masher, your headline for this post is, well wrong. Europe isnt considering this. The lib dems are considering it as a policy to put forward. It will never get any further than that.


RE: What if they said no?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/12/2007 11:12:33 AM , Rating: 2
> "Also, to masher, your headline for this post is, well wrong. Europe isnt considering this. The lib dems are considering it as a policy to put forward"

Its a proposal endorsed by committee, and being debated before Parliament, the highest legislative body within the EU. That certainly qualifies as 'Europe considering this'...if it goes further, it becomes law, regardless of whether or not the average EU citizen considers it or not.

Will it pass without changes? Most likely not, but the mere fact it got this far is highly illustrative.


RE: What if they said no?
By Merry on 7/14/2007 6:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
Parliament, the highest legislative body within the EU

Wrong. The Eu parliament holds little power.

Its a proposal endorsed by committee

I wonder who is on the said committee?

if it goes further, it becomes law, regardless of whether or not the average EU citizen considers it or not.


Wrong again. The respective EU members have to implement said law in their own legislatures. This is why the Uk only got a human rights bill very recently despite it being EU law.

Will it pass without changes? Most likely not, but the mere fact it got this far is highly illustrative.


Correct it wont pass. At all. Illustrative of what exactly? A party that has lost its 'green' standing as the Tories have taken that ground? I dont think you understand how this policy has come about.

Also many of you misunderstand me. The questionnaires only got sent out to those who are a member of the lib dems. NOT the wider electorate.

Masher your headline should be 'Lib Dems consider banning sports cars' NOt Europe.


RE: What if they said no?
By Ringold on 7/12/2007 2:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
provided he actually listened to the results, which I very much doubt


They're learning from American politicians quickly. Perhaps it's the other way around, though.

That ought not to surprise you though, given Ireland will be the only one with a popular vote for the new constitution -- which every citizen should have the right to vote on, as it transfers some sovereign powers from the national capitols to Brussels. They fear the popular vote, however. If they don't give a damn what all of Europe thinks on matters of it's own constitution it doesn't surprise me at all that they'd send you a worthless questionaire.

Maybe American politicians should do that, though. Send questionaires; actually make us feel involved or important, even if we arent.


RE: What if they said no?
By fic2 on 7/12/2007 6:20:38 PM , Rating: 4
I get questionaires all the time from American politicians. They usually start out:

I would like to donate: []$5000 []$1000 []$100 []other to express my opinion on matter XYZ.


RE: What if they said no?
By crazydrummer4562 on 7/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: What if they said no?
By daBKLYNdoorman on 7/16/2007 10:14:35 AM , Rating: 2
Something inside me is telling me that one day, a country will decide to ban all automobiles and command all of its residents to use the subway and their bikes to travel.


Amazing
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/11/2007 1:46:11 PM , Rating: 4
Sometimes it amazes me just how far out there Europe is getting. Does he seriously think sports cars are heavier and built to withstand impact at those speeds? Most sports cars use lighter materials to help achieve those speeds, they also tend to be death traps if you wreck at those speeds as well.

Now on a side note, Europe is going all out to cut co2 emissions which is amusing since co2 is pretty harmless. My next thought is that this will all work, countries will cut co2 production by an order of magnitude but then data will show that the planet is still warming at the same rate, if not faster, and then everyone will feel like complete morons. Ah I can't wait for that in another 50 years.




RE: Amazing
By Aikouka on 7/11/2007 2:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
That's the first thing I thought of Kenobi.... Some of these high-end sports cars have lightweight metal or carbon fiber bodies that are not designed to withstand crashes at their top-rated speed or heck... even normal driving speeds!

I'm a bit skeptical of people making such audacious bills anymore. Are they doing it for publicity and trying to ride the coattails of the newest global/regional scare (which I'd say is global warming right now)?


RE: Amazing
By Ringold on 7/12/2007 2:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
Lets even forget entirely about warp-speed earth-shattering impacts and fuel economy; my mothers V-8-powered Corvette routinely gets the same mileage as my V-4 Camry. She drives a little softer, but I log more highway miles. I can't see how a sports car under normal driving conditions could be contributing more than any other vehicle..


RE: Amazing
By jacarte8 on 7/12/2007 3:15:01 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt very much your mother has a V-4 Camry


RE: Amazing
By jacarte8 on 7/12/2007 3:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I hate trying to make a smart remark and screw it up...

*I'll bet your Camry is an I-4*


RE: Amazing
By Ringold on 7/13/2007 2:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, she doesn't, I do. She has the 'vette. You and the other poster are right, though; it's an I4. I had to check. Sorry. Camry isn't a vehicle that brings the motorhead out in me.

Used to have a 1982 special edition Corvette myself.. The hybrid dual-carb fuel injection system was a conversation piece, but also a source of expense.. It was too much for high school income at the time. That I could tell you details about, though. Camry? Not so much. Sorry :) I was close, though..


RE: Amazing
By MrTeal on 7/11/2007 10:52:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My next thought is that this will all work, countries will cut co2 production by an order of magnitude but then data will show that the planet is still warming at the same rate, if not faster, and then everyone will feel like complete morons.


That's just silly. People won't feel like morons, they'll claim they knew that it was going to be that way, blame someone else for the push to cut CO2 emissions, and wait for someone to tell them what the next scapegoat bandwagon is. It's the circle of life. :P


RE: Amazing
By Hare on 7/12/2007 11:14:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sometimes it amazes me just how far out there Europe is getting.

Why? Because some random moron proposes a stupid idea? As Merry above said: "Europe isnt considering this. The lib dems are considering it as a policy to put forward . It will never get any further than that."

Labeling people is unnecessary. I could think of a few stupid things proposed there at the other side of the pond aswell but I'd like to keep my faith that you guys are ok. I wont resort to labeling the whole continent because of a single nut.


RE: Amazing
By Ringold on 7/12/2007 3:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure Master Kenobi also had in mind the last several decades worth, at the national levels and at the pan-european EU level, of inane policy that really did get enacted and not just what the Liberal Democrats were pushing currently. It also is slightly indicative of the general EU opinion of things when a major party considers anything; it's not like only Democrat politicians in America are the only ones waiting for the whole Iraq affair to be over with and the 99% of non-politician American's are thinking it's all just going grand. That, and protectionist policy coming out of the party, etc, accurately reflects upon that part of the population.


RE: Amazing
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/13/2007 10:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. Europe has a very colorful history at the moment, and history does tend to repeat itself.


Anything with a top speed over 101?
By SirLucius on 7/11/2007 3:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
Banning any car with a top speed over 101mph?! I know Europe uses smaller, less powerful cars than the US, but still. It seems like most cars manufactured today should be able to go over 100 without much problem.




By Suomynona on 7/11/2007 4:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
I know, that's such a joke. I've done over 100 MPH in a '95 Geo Prism. There are very few cars today that can't do at least 100 MPH. Manufacturers would just lower their governors to 100, which totally defeats the purpose.


RE: Anything with a top speed over 101?
By othercents on 7/11/2007 4:29:49 PM , Rating: 5
What would happen if they just put a limiter on every car, so that they all top out at 100mph?

Other


RE: Anything with a top speed over 101?
By PaxtonFettel on 7/11/2007 8:14:25 PM , Rating: 3
That would have to be the solution. There are very few cars incapable of 100mph these days, hell I could even get my 12 year old Peugot 106 over 100 on a nice day on the motorway. So what we'll have is a bunch of exactly the same cars but with limiters so they fit in the sub 101 bracket.
Trying to create this sort of legislation by limiting speed is just a ridiculous proposal and will do NOTHING to help reduce carbon emissions. Sports cars are very highly tuned to get every last bit of energy from every last drop of petrol and put it on to the road. A modern 200mph sports car is almost certainly a whole lot better than an old 2CV that can't even touch 70.
If they want to legislate carbon emissions, then that is what they should do, not go trying to make a point by crying wolf about banning sports cars. Totally ridiculous. There are speed limits in place to limit speed and emissions tests to monitor emissions. Make the latter more stringent and you don't need to go messing around with the former.


By Ringold on 7/12/2007 2:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they want to legislate carbon emissions, then that is what they should do, not go trying to make a point by crying wolf about banning sports cars.


In theory, I'd agree. In practice though I really prefer they take this route. Here they are, telling the world what their objective is; to reduce emissions and strike at a symbol of affluence. The world can therefore easily listen and very quickly understand what's going on -- and object. If they were savvy politicians, they'd do exactly what you propose, but they'd make it stringent enough that it achieved the exact same end result. The difference is it'd be a more complicated route and the only people that'd bother to pick up on it before it were too late would be the "right wing nutjob" types. So, yes, at least for now it's above board rather than below the table -- I reference the amazing vanishing act of the American diesel engine for the 2008 model year as such an example.


By feelingshorter on 7/13/2007 2:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
They could just take the limiter out. Don't know about all cars but I've seen it done, some limiters are located in the engine but that can still be taken out. That or you can take your speedometer out, which means you wont know how fast your going either (horrible idea).

Anyways, i know cars like the Skyline in Europe comes limited when it is imported to Europe. I'm not sure of the reasons but it might be something to do with faster car = higher import taxes or other issues with taxes. Changing out a simple chip and your European Skyline will be unlocked to use all its HP.

So limiters won't work for enthusiasts. Kind of like copyright protection on BR or HDDVD, it will be hacked if you allow the consumer to access it.

If anything, just have the government test the cars on how well it does with emissions. Then make people pay yearly fees thats attached to their drivers license (dont pay, dont drive). This could be done for extreme cases...if you own a Bugatti Veyron, i'm sure you have enough money left over to pay a heft fine for polluting an unfair share of air around you.


RE: Anything with a top speed over 101?
By Xerstead on 7/12/2007 3:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
Forget sports cars, almost every car made in the last 10 years will go over 100mph. I've managed over 110 mph in a 13 year old 1.4l Citroen ZX!! On a private road/track of course :) It just took a bit longer to get there than the new models.


By Xerstead on 7/12/2007 4:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
If this did ever see the light of day, (as a possible proposal by a party with no chance of being in power any time soon, it wont.)
Manufacturers would add a limiter set to 100mph, this wouldn't make any difference to emmissions as very few drive over 100. All the CO2 and safety issues would still stand.


I propose a ban on...
By kattanna on 7/11/2007 3:08:33 PM , Rating: 5
showboat legislation.

thats all this is. nothing more. the author knows im sure that this has about as much hope of passing as george bush becoming the most beloved president of all time.

but in seriousness, with the current EU leader being a german...i cant see him throwing his support behind such a silly measure.

this guy is doing this to further his own career as then when his term there is done he can parade to others all the "hard" work he has done to help further the enviroment.

its a political career move..nothing more..nothing less




RE: I propose a ban on...
By Dianoda on 7/11/2007 7:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Methinks that maybe the title of this blog post would better reflect it's contents by placing "Nutjob politician(s) in" before Europe.


RE: I propose a ban on...
By PaxtonFettel on 7/11/2007 8:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
Completely agree. I've already picked it apart up there, but it bears saying again what a ludicrous notion this is. I'm surprised anyone is even thinking about this seriously.


RE: I propose a ban on...
By Ringold on 7/12/2007 2:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
thats all this is. nothing more. the author knows im sure that this has about as much hope of passing as george bush becoming the most beloved president of all time.


I was hoping to see another GW article from masher this week; I've picked up on a whole slew of interesting tidbits over the past couple weeks. I saw this after I was done playing with my stocks though this afternoon at another news site and knew immediately there'd be a post at DailyTech about it. I suppose GW and car bans are indeed roughly related themes, though.


100 MPH is nothing in europe
By Nik00117 on 7/11/2007 3:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
My 1989 318i BMW can hit speeds of about 190 KM if I REALLY PUSH IT.

Thats about 118-120 MPH.

This is no sports car.

And I agree this is just a career move all it is.




RE: 100 MPH is nothing in europe
By Chillin1248 on 7/11/2007 4:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Hell my 2007 ~85bhp Sirion Dihatsu can hit speeds in excess of 160km/h, and could go further if I wasn't afraid of the wheels falling off it.

-------
Chillin


RE: 100 MPH is nothing in europe
By josmala on 7/14/2007 8:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
Heck even 80's Toyota corolla can get over that. Nowadays.


RE: 100 MPH is nothing in europe
By Chillin1248 on 7/14/2007 12:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever seen the Sirion? It is not exactly the kind of car that gives the impressions it can hit 100KM/h (I have the 1.3 automatic 2WD version):

http://www.daihatsu.com/catalogue/sirion/performan...

It actually says in the Driver Manual not to exceed speeds of 90KM/h with this vehicle.

-------
Chillin


RE: 100 MPH is nothing in europe
By PlasmaBomb on 7/16/2007 2:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
My first car would do 100 mph and weighed 100kg less than your Sirion, it was great fun =)


the open road
By Screwballl on 7/12/2007 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
With the wide expanses found in the US, I have seen a study that kind of proves a point...
People that live or were raised in populated areas of 10,000 or higher tend to prefer going longer distances via plane or train or alternative methods.
People that live or were raised in much smaller areas tend to prefer the open road and drive almost everywhere including cross country.

I am a small town guy and I have been coast to coast in the US in a car. Never left the country, never been on a moving airplane, never been on a train, only once on a bus for 36 hours (had to go somewhere to pickup up a car and drive it back).

I have no experience in comparing another country's transportation system but i do have to say I love the open road. Doesn't matter if it is in my 3/4 tom suburban with a 454 getting 10 mpg or my old car with a 4cyl getting 40mpg. It is the call of the open road that many of us Americans love. (Now does anyone have an idea on how to convert my 454 to something that would get better mileage without selling it hahaha)




RE: the open road
By Screwballl on 7/12/2007 12:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
quick correction... kind of

The study said something along the lines that the lower the population, the more likely people will be dependent and prefer using their personal vehicle for longer distance transportation, even if other methods are available.

sorry if my post had any confusion...

also a typo... that is supposed to be 3/4 TON not tom


RE: the open road
By jacarte8 on 7/12/2007 3:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Get on a plane... go out and experience more of the world. America is an awesome, beautiful place and I've enjoyed my travels across this country; however, nothing is as enlightening as visiting other cultures.


Very misleading title
By 91TTZ on 7/13/2007 1:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
As others have said, the title is misleading. Europe is not proposing this, one lawmaker in Europe is proposing it.




RE: Very misleading title
By porkpie on 7/13/2007 3:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Its not just one politician. If it was, it would have gotten slapped down in committee. Instead, it got approved as an official recommendation, and is now before Parliament.

Sounds like more than just one screwball lawmaker to me.


And I thought our politicians were dumb
By darkpaw on 7/11/07, Rating: 0
By ChuckvB on 7/11/2007 5:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
All these restrictions are just meaningless in a society where the population is going to increase exponentially. What's the point of making cars 25% more efficient if we quadruple our population? We'll still be worse off. Not to mention all the third world populations that are just now getting their first cars.


Not in the USA
By edge929 on 7/11/2007 3:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
That $hit would never fly in the USA, never.




This guy has some problems...
By spindoc on 7/11/2007 5:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
This is akin to the name tag fiasco that Lloyd Braun proposed in an episode of Seinfeld.

Seriously, if the environment is the concern then I am in full agreement. How about limiting the carbon emissions? Blindly, eliminating every vehicle that travels at 160k and above is not right.

What about the Tesla Roadster?




hi
By 8steve8 on 7/11/2007 6:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
no cars will be banned...
what will happen is car companies will have european versions of each model, with a speed limit of 101mph or whatever the law is.

it is silly to ban cars based on top speed... or anything other than efficiency.

um... SUVs anyone?




Crappiest headline, ever.
By MikeO on 7/12/2007 2:57:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Europe Proposes Banning All Sports Cars


Right, because one nutjob politician wanting to make headlines equals Europe.

This s**t is just too funny, top speed of 162km/h? My '93 1.6l Toyota can do that. So this wouldn't just ban all sport cars, it would ban most other cars as well.

quote:
Europe has long been known as home to some of the planet's fastest sports cars


And will be known for a long, long time.




By Captain Orgazmo on 7/12/2007 3:10:20 AM , Rating: 2
It is very difficult for me to hear anything about this so-called evil deadly bad bad CO2 gas without wanting to hurl and or kill something, but I have to point out, even if this ludicrous law was passed, it would do nothing to slow the sales and production of the biggest enviro-killing, gas-guzzling, smog spewing, baby-killer of them all: the SUV. Of course the Porsche Cayenne would have to be slowed down... maybe a parachute could be deployed at 101 mph...




Jeremy Clarkson
By PrinceGaz on 7/12/2007 10:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder what Jeremy Clarkson would think of the proposal? :)




Wow
By Polynikes on 7/15/2007 2:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
Although this proposal is laughable, it is still extremely disturbing.




EU is so small
By Athe on 7/16/2007 3:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
Germany is the size of Montana, but has about 90 million residents. That makes transportation much easier than if you have a country nearly the size of China with a mere 300 million residents.




By Blackraven on 7/16/2007 9:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
^^^Read question above.

I have a cousin who lives and Japan who just bought a Lexus LS 600 hybrid JDM version (LWB I think). He says it has the 180 km/h gauge and once that speed is reached, it will just stay that way (also speed-limited via CPU).

He says that with the 8-cylinder engine inside the Lexus LS 600hL (not to mention the addition of the electric motor), reaching 180 km/h is a breeze. His usual testing grounds are usually C1 Chuo Kanjo expressway, the overpasses in Haneda and the roads that connect main Tokyo to Chiba. Usually, it takes less than 10 seconds to get to the 180 km/h speed limit (even if the car is standard electric 4WD/AWD)

He says that cruise control max. limit is only at 100 km/h.

Since Japan though has used this 180 km/h max ruling for more than three decades, it is already normal for them (as if it is part of the system).

However, if such limits were to be applied to continental Europe......well I'm not really sure. This would however hurt the Euro sport car makes the most (Ferrari and Porsche would violenty react first)




By sobad on 7/16/2007 11:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
I used to live in Logan, Utah. They have the best public transportation system I have ever seen, its a bus system that hits the entire city, its a city of 50k ish people and the bus is easily the most utilized thing there. So it is possible, it just needs startup.




Take this clue
By Griswold on 7/12/2007 10:02:21 AM , Rating: 1
With the exception of two thirds of the german autobahn network, all european countries have speed limits well below 162kph - it therefore wouldnt have the slightest impact on 99% of the Joe Average population in europe - even in germany, since the majority there doesnt constantly drive faster than 160kph and thats not only due to all the traffic jams and construction sites.

In a nutshell: it would have an impact on notorious leadfoots with too much money for tickets and people with too much money for sports cars they cant possibly take to their limits, except on race tracks.

On the manufacturer side, it would of course affect the ferraris, porsches and aston martins of the world, but they could can sell their "unlocked" cars to the rest of the world and do what all german manufacturers have been doing for ages: electronically limit the cars to 162kph instead of 250kph, as it is now.

But in reality, this will never go through. This is just another bubble that will be forgotten in 6 months - its not the first time such a proposal surfaces and while I think its generally a good idea, it wont happen.

Oh and masher, you're late with this by several months and it really doesnt play into your cards anyway - look elsewhere.




Moronic thoughts = european ideas
By GlassHouse69 on 7/11/07, Rating: -1
By probedb on 7/12/2007 10:34:10 AM , Rating: 4
I love how some of you people seem to think one nutty politician is what the population of rather a large number of countries think.

Because basically your title is stating all my ideas are moronic because I'm European....frickin weirdo.


By jacarte8 on 7/12/2007 3:16:34 PM , Rating: 4
That's like saying stupid bible thumpers = Americans

Yes it's true for a certain percentage of the population but not an appropriate title to a post


RE: Moronic thoughts = european ideas
By DARGH on 7/16/2007 9:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
Everything that is popular is not necessarily good.
Everything that is good is not necessarily popular.
A different view point does not indicate stupidity.
The lack of ability to make a counter agreement to a view point beyond 'uh - that is stupid', would more so reflect lack of intelligence.

Btw. tell me - why do i have to drive faster than 100mph?
SUV's are super popular in the US, and their top speed are not a physical limitation of the engine power.
They still sell nevertheless....


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki