![lead_large[1].jpg_1464729216.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XhJ7EGW.jpg "lead_large[1].jpg_1464729216.jpg")
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/05/paris-is-banning-cars-built-before-1997/484895/
>If your car was built before 1997, don’t even think about driving it into Paris after this month. From July 1, the French capital will ban vehicles older than 19 years from driving in the city on workdays. Motorcycles will face yet tighter restrictions, with a driving ban on all two-wheeled motor vehicles made after 2000. Anyone caught driving an older vehicle will face a fine whose potential severity ranges from modest (€35) to biting (€450). While these vehicles will still be allowed on the roads before 8 a.m. and after 8 p.m., and without restriction on weekends, the new rules represent some of the toughest restrictions on drivers yet introduced by a European city.
>The new ban may be strict, but it sits quite comfortably among a host of emissions-slashing rules brought in recently by the city of Paris. Following huge build-ups of pollutants during winter 2014, the city introduced temporary car bans until levels started to abate. After some demonstrable success in improving appalling air quality in this way, Paris has gone on to introduce occasional periodic driving bans for such hotspots as the Champs Élysées. What’s more, the upcoming ban on pre-1997 vehicles will be further tightened in the near future. In 2020, any car made before 2010 will be banned from daytime driving, while the weekday ban will also be extended to 24-hours.
...
>It may be tempting to paint Paris as a lone eco-warrior, fighting pollution levels that at times have been among the worst in the world. But the new ban rests substantially on anti-pollution action taken at the national level in France—action that has actually been watered down thanks to pressure from Paris’s mayor, among others. The upcoming old-car ban in fact relies on a new national system of classifying cars according to their emissions levels. Starting July 1, French cars will be grouped into six categories depending on the degree of pollution they create. Drivers can then apply to receive a display disc for their windshield. Such discs (which are free for the next 6 months, and €5 after) won’t as yet be compulsory across France, though drivers of zero and very-low emitting vehicles will get some occasional perks (such as priority parking) that make applying worth their while.
>The new windshield discs will, however, be obligatory in Paris, where the most polluting of the six categories (all vehicles registered before December 31, 1996) will face the weekday ban. If anything, the new categories could have been tighter. Originally, the national plan was to divide cars into four categories rather than six, in order to place restrictions on the most polluting fourth. In Paris, this could have meant up to 10 percent of the city’s private vehicle fleet being forced off the roads, a radical change liable to cause an uncomfortable backlash. Mayors from Paris, Versailles and Grenoble thus petitioned (successfully) for the diluted, more nuanced system being brought in this July.
...
>The new rules will still affect up to 30,000 vehicles currently registered in Paris. The moves won’t be popular with everyone (and will likely affect people on lower incomes more) but Paris’s political structure has arguably helped it achieve greater acceptance. As a mayor governing only the 2.2 million citizens living in the historic core of Paris’s wider metro area, Anne Hidalgo is answerable to an electorate who already rely substantially on public transit and who suffer more than most the long-term effects of car commuter-related pollution. It may be a jolt for older vehicle owners, but Paris seems to be ready for change.
5 years later, will they pass a new law forbidding cars from before 2002?
>>47264
depends on how much "greener" cars will be in a few years I suppose
>>47264
It would not surprise me if they banned all non-commercial vehicles during business hours. It would only help the taxi industry and public transport.
>Nebulous environmental concerns are more important than tax revenue in a welfare state
Yuropoors can't even destroy their nations with socialism correctly.
Fucking pathetic.
What advent of technology was it that made cars run cleaner in1997?
>>47203
clever nigger removal though
>>47264
10 years from now, I would not be surprised if non-EVs are banned.
But i like my beater.
>>47337
Good thing youre not a baguette.
>>47203
Genius nigger curbinh
>driving any age car in a big city
takes me half hour to get to work from home in london on the victoria line, double that by car, triple by walking
>implying that replacing 30000 cars won't cause more emissions than leaving them on the road
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car
That's not to mention the consumer rights implications. This is government-enforced planned obsolescence. Ironically, the French have been passing laws to combat planned obsolescence recently:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/france-planned-obsolescence-law/
Cars aren't the only things we use that become more energy efficient as technology advances; most appliances do that. It doesn't make any sense that planned obsolescence should be a good thing for cars but a bad thing for everything else. Granted, the power used by electrical appliances is probably largely renewable, but the cost (both to the consumer and to the environment) of manufacturing is the more important consideration in both cases.
I spent most of Summer 2015 in Italy, and one of the many cool things about Italy is the prevalence of old cars. It's an expression of their respect for the importance of preserving things, which is one of the coolest aspects of their culture. In the U.S. everything is made to be disposable, which is one of the worst aspects of its culture, not to mention really bad for both consumers and the environment.
If I owned a car for thirty years, more than a third of my life expectancy, did all the work on it myself, and kept it in good condition for hundreds of thousands of miles, as I plan to do for the car that I've now been driving for more than ten years, and my government told me that I had to throw it away and buy a new one because it is the environmentally conscious thing to do, I would move to another country and take my car with me. What a bunch of ass holes.
>>47359
>never leaving your city
>>47399
Agreed. Politicians are stupid, frog politicians are double stupid and shoot themselves in the foot.
>>47203
Aren't some older cars way more efficient? Isn't there a Geo Metro equivalent over there?
>>47335
I'm thinking 20 but yeah, no sense in an ultimate goal if having zero emmissions when cars already have the capability to do so.
>>47203
>not banning anything that exclusively runs on oil and putting all energy related funding into nuclear fusion
>>47203
Just a scam to make people pump money into the stagnant car industry.
>>47296
I want to disagree with your tone towards socialism, but I find the condescension appropriate.
>>47332
It's not that cars run cleaner. Newer cars all have computers that run everything instead of being purely mechanical. Newer cars are vulnerable to EMP/hacking/government backdoors.
It's about "fuck you", goyim.
[THIS POST IS UNAVAILABLE IN EU MEMBER STATES DUE TO THE HATEFUL AND/OR VIOLENT NATURE OF ITS CONTENT. ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO ACCESS CENSORED CONTENT WILL RESULT IN PROSECUTION TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW UNDER CONSPIRACY AND ACCESSORY GUIDELINES FOUND IN EU RESOLUTION #3618.]
If my city (Mexico City) has taught me anything is that this types of programs don't work.
they should ban boats before made before 97 too
The early stages of agenda 21!!!!!!!!!!
why though so you can have a disfunctional car made after 1997
another "eco" law doing more harm than good. oh well, can't be worse than the ban on lead solder
>>48300
what wrong with lead-free solder?
>>48303
it grows tin whiskers and is more likely to crack.
Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive
it's so shit it even triggered a nuclear power plant shutdown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millstone_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Events
>>48308
messed up the first link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive#Effect_on_reliability
and to give another example: my current pc has a broken gpu, the screen is full of white lines and it's most likely due to a failure at the solder points on a memory ship.
>>47296
They'll probably generate revenue with all these restrictions, given the fines they'll likely regularly give, and the compulsory purchase of those windshield discs.
>>47886
/r/ing a story
>>48401
Ring?
>>47886
Police actually sometimes do their jobs in France.
>>48473
It's not about enforcing the law, it's about the real efficency of this law. Most of the polution, in my city at least, comes from unregulated factories.
>>48475
I don't think that's the same with Paris. That's typically a problem in developing countries (India, China, etc.) where cities expanded really fast and industry never moved out far enough. I don't think Paris' pollution problem is the result of factories; their primary pollutant, last I heard, is PM 10, which is created by car exhaust.
>>47296
Paris has had terrible smog in the spring for 2 years straight, they really have to do something about it as tourism is a big thing there and also it's a health hazard.
I was there in springtime in 2009 and also in 2014 and the smog in 2014 was fucking unbearable, all of the Parisians were talking about it too. Screw tax revenue if you can't breathe properly man
>>47332
The Catalysator was made mandatory in new cars in EU countries in 1992, at least, maybe something else too
>>47886
>Mexico City is the world
Well, not all cities function like Mexico City, you know.
>>48709
I think it has to do more with the geographical section in which it is located.
>>48460
WEEWOO REAL NEWFAG HOURS SMASH DAT LIKE BUTTON
>>48303
It's also a pain in the ass to work with, since it has a higher melting point. It also is not nearly as bad for the environment or for us as people claim.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker_(metallurgy)
How would they test emission levels anyway? everybody knows car manufacturers have been lying about emission tests for the last decade now. What reliable information do they have to put these cars into different emission category's?
>>50233
The car manufacturers only lied to the American government. EU countries actually spend the money to set up a government lab which tests things to keep the manufacturers honest, unlike their American counterparts.
