I love Paris. It’s one of my favorite cities. One of the aspects I adore about Paris is the walkability. This should make me sympathetic to the city’s plan to charge more for SUVs, but the terminology that officials are using seems flawed, and underlines how enthusiasts are losing the battle for hearts and minds.
We’re talking about infrastructure today on The Morning Dump! And when we’re done with that, we’ll talk about Chinese JVs, Germany EVs, and NHTSA’s AV plans.
Paris Takes On ‘Auto-Besity’
“There is never any ending to Paris and the memory of each person who has lived in it differs from that of any other.” – Ernest Hemingway from ‘A Movable Feast’
I’m prefacing this story by saying my Paris is the Paris of memory, divorced from the reality of actually living there permanently. In that memory, the only cars in the city are old Citroëns and Peugeots, which “waft” more than they actually drive down the boulevards. If I scratch at that memory a bit, it reveals lumbering diesel trucks, large-ish crossovers, and sometimes seemingly-poorly cared for hatchbacks.
With that out of the way, I should make it clear that I love cars and I think people should have the right to drive what they want, with some logical restrictions for safety and the environment. At the same time, I think it’s reasonable to charge more for cars to access certain areas. Cities should be built for people, not cars, and if you want to bring a car to the dense innards of the city, you should have to pay for it.
Yet, Paris’s new restrictions have me worried that the word “SUV” has been misconstrued and that we’re giving a pass to all EVs simply for being EVs. Let’s run through what we know, courtesy of The Guardian, which says Paris is going to tax “SUVs” more going forward. It’s a little vague as to what this actually means as the rule hasn’t been published, but:
Details of the charges have not been announced but the size, weight of the vehicle and its motor will be taken into consideration.
Electric vehicles and those with large families requiring a bigger car are expected to escape the increased fees that will come into effect on 1 January 2024.
Okay, so this seems fair. Taking into consideration the weight and size of a vehicle is a reasonable thing to do. Life is already full of similar concepts we all deal with. If you want a bigger seat on a plane you pay more. If you want a bigger space for an RV at a campsite you pay more. In Japan, we got Kei cars because of a program that encourages smaller cars for cities. Weight, especially, is important. A heavier and larger a vehicle is the more wear it puts on roads (especially in places like Paris) and, all else being equal, the more dangerous it can be. Especially to pedestrians.
But the “SUV” thing bugs me a little bit. Everything seems like an SUV today; I don’t remember Paris being overrun with Land Cruisers. Of the 20 most popular cars sold in France last year, the most popular SUV is a Renault Captur. This thing (And it has good pedestrian safety ratings):
And the rest of the “SUVs” are, like, the Peugeot 3008 and Dacia Duster. I bring this up for a specific reason, from the same Guardian piece linked above:
Paris councillors approved the measure in an unanimous vote last month. Frédéric Badina-Serpette, a councillor from the EELV ecology party that proposed the increased charges, said: “We would like the city of Paris to change the pricing of paid parking to make it progressive according to the weight and size of vehicles.”
He said the aim was “to focus on an absurdity: auto-besity … the inexorable growth in the weight and size of vehicles circulating in our cities, and particularly in Paris”.
“Auto-besity” is a great term. I wish I’d coined that. Here’s a place where auto enthusiasts and ecologically-minded French politicians agree: cars are getting too heavy! Flood the street with Lotuses! But, this is also where we come to the part of the story where I feel like Inigo Montoya in “The Princess Bride” talking to Wallace Shawn’s character: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
The catch in these French laws (other cities are considering them) is that they excuse electric vehicles when, frankly, it’s the EVs that are getting bigger and heavier. Let’s compare. A Dacia Duster “SUV” weighs, in its heaviest trim, scarcely above 3,200 pounds. A Tesla Model 3, which is excused from fees, weighs 3,800 pounds in its lightest trim. The more SUV-like BMW iX weighs about 5,700 pounds.
Put another way: Would you rather be hit by a 3,000-pound car or a 6,000-pound SUV?
While there are some SUVs in the classical sense (Landcruisers, G-Wagens) in Paris, the council seems to be conflating all large vehicles with SUVs. Here’s some more from that Guardian piece; it quotes “deputy mayor responsible for public space and mobility policy” David Belliard, who says (I added the bold for emphasis):
“There are no dirt paths , no mountain roads … SUVs are absolutely useless in Paris. Worse, they are dangerous, cumbersome and use too many resources to manufacture,” Belliard said.
This is where I worry. The French have a good reason to not like gas-powered cars; while it’s not as much of an issue in Germany, France, in my experience, doesn’t do a great job of enforcing particulate emissions controls on its cars and trucks (if you don’t believe me, try waiting at a péage to pay your toll with your windows down). (To its credit, Paris is also trying to ditch diesel vehicles in its city center).
While reducing gas-powered cars has a potential positive environmental and local-health impact, just swapping them with heavier and often bigger EVs doesn’t make streets any safer for pedestrians or more walkable. It could make streets less safe. It would be more logical, in my view, to have a congestion/parking charge similar to what London has but applied to all vehicles based on weight and size. EVs, too, use a ton of resources to manufacture!
Here, I think, the Paris Council is using “SUV” to mean cars they don’t like and not cars that take up a lot of space. I’m curious to see what the regulations are related to engine displacement (which makes sense). As someone who cares about urbanism I’m uncomfortable with the idea of just replacing all cars in the city with bigger cars, even if they are SUVs.
[Editor’s Note: Matt and I got into a heated, multi-hour argument about this piece (OK it wasn’t that heated. I just wasn’t understanding at first). So Paris is taxing cars based on size/weight and engine because they’re tired of dirty cars in their city, many of which are SUVs. What’s the problem? That seems logical, I thought. Well, the (eventual) law isn’t a problem unless you realize the apparent motivations behind the lawmakers, which is to get rid of big SUVs not just for their local emissions (if it were just that, it’d make sense), but also for the congestion they cause, the resources they use during the manufacturing process, and the pedestrian safety risks they pose. Those latter three issues still apply to EVs! So maybe taxing EVs makes sense! Anyway, apologies for The Afternoon Dump! -DT].
And, more importantly, we can ignore politics, but politics will not ignore us. We’re at an inflection point as a community and I think, rather than freak out or rail against any car restrictions, car fans should embrace the political process, reflect on where limits make sense, and insert themselves into the decision-making process.
Do Joint Ventures In China Have A Future?
For years, Western automakers printed big bucks by tying themselves up with local Chinese companies and helping those state-owned and state-supported entities build cars. (This was a requirement for foreign companies to do business in China).
The future of those partnerships is in jeopardy. You want a canary in a coal mine? Mitsubishi, which is partnered with Guangzhou Automobile Group (GAC), said it’s going to have to start cutting back costs in the country after people stopped buying Outlanders.
Instead, Chinese consumers are looking towards often more advanced EVs from domestic brands. This Reuters report breaks out the problem quite clearly:
Established automakers have been under deepening pressure in China where the market is shifting quickly to EVs and toward newer Chinese brands not operating in the joint ventures that had dominated sales for decades.
AlixPartners has forecast that Chinese brands would take more than 50% of the world’s largest auto market for the first time this year.
Mitsubishi’s sales in China peaked in 2018, when it recorded sales of over 141,000 vehicles, according to industry data. In 2022, sales had dropped below 33,000 vehicles.
The show does go on forever, but for some the party does end.
BMW Thinks It Can Sell 50,000 EVs In The United States This Year
I’ve driven the BMW i4 M and thought, yeah, this is pretty good. I’ve had a BMW iX for a week (review coming) and, frankly, it’s even better. Sorry to disappoint. If you want a fast and luxurious car that feels ok to drive then an electric vehicle makes sense.
They are, however, expensive, and don’t qualify for the same kind of tax credits as other EVs in the market. Apparently, luxury buyers aren’t as bothered.
Here’s what BMW told Automotive News:
BMW anticipates selling 50,000 electric vehicles in the U.S. this year, the brand’s top sales executive told Automotive News.
That’s nearly triple the 17,964 EVs the German automaker sold in the year’s first six months.
That’s a lot of expensive EVs. What about Mercedes? Again, from Automotive News:
Mercedes delivered 77,287 passenger vehicles — down 2.3 percent — in the April-to-June period. It was one of only three major luxury brands, along with Lincoln and Porsche, to report a quarterly sales decline.
And:
“They have underproduced combustion and overproduced EQs,” said a retailer who asked to not be identified. “What is needed is combustion cars, not EVs.”
The source said Mercedes is in for a “rude awakening” with its rush to EVs. “The market has a voice in this, and Mercedes didn’t consider that,” he said.
Yikes. So there are some buyers, but it’s a crowded space and having the right product (and not too much of it) seems like the smart play now.
NHTSA Is On Top Of This AV Thing
Let’s get right to it, the United States Government is going to figure out this AV thing and it’s going to do it with a perfectly tortured United States Governmentish acronym:
AV STEP or ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency and Evaluation Program
Ok. What does that mean? Acting NHTSA Administrator Ann Carlson gave a whole speech about this yesterday, which you can read here. Here are some of the highlights:
Under AV STEP, NHTSA would consider applications for deploying noncompliant ADS vehicles, subject to review processes, terms, and conditions that the agency would require to ensure public safety and transparency. The program would also accept applications for the participation of compliant ADS vehicles whose operators would find benefit from being included in AV STEP.
This seems like a big win for carmakers, who can theoretically deploy a lot of ‘noncompliant vehicles.’ So why are they doing this? Later on in the same speech:
The program would enhance our research into AV safety and AV performance. We also believe the program would provide additional transparency about AV safety and deployment while giving the public assurance that NHTSA is overseeing the deployment of AVs on our public streets.
There’s the key word. ‘Transparency.” It’s pay-to-play, but instead of money it seems like NHTSA wants companies to give all their data to the government in exchange for an easier and clearer permitting process. Data that will be used to make new laws:
Ultimately, we will likely use our rulemaking authority to develop a regulatory structure for automated vehicles. We believe that AV STEP would hasten NHTSA’s progress toward establishing an effective governance structure for ADS performance. That’s one of the reasons we’re so excited about it.
This was a long-time coming and feels like a win-win, so I can’t wait for someone to freak out about it.
The Big Question
What are automotive regulations you support?
Photo Credits: Matt Hardigree, Renault, Cruise
Speaking of driver assistance systems. Nhtsa hasn’t outright banned Tesla’s product names (autopilot and full self driving) for reasons I don’t know, though I suspect it’s a free speech thing. But maybe they could make them rename those products under false advertising or consumer protection rules?
Pedestrian safety and/or hood height restrictions. Also regulating trucks, especially HD to the same standards as other vehicles. Also, not incentivizing EV trucks and SUVs over EV cars by giving them a higher price cap.
The problem with framing regulation around the term “SUV” is that, as Matt’s piece suggests, it doesn’t have any fixed meaning, and is then often used as a stand-in for whatever the people in question don’t like. Intelligently-designed regulation of this type needs to have some kind of quantifiable basis for defining what you are regulating (e.g. vehicle weight), and SUV is a marketing term that was, I believed coined by an AMC executive in the ‘70s to describe the FSJ. It may have been Gerald Meyers, who just died last month.
I do not refer to anything as an SUV because I don’t think it has a valid definition, and never did.
Things like Jeeps, old Land Cruisers, old Land Rovers, early Broncos and Scouts really don’t share anything except four wheel drive. People used to call these 4x4s and now retroactively call them SUVs.
Things like Suburbans, Explorers, Wagoneers, Expeditions, 4runners share a basic style and body plan. Outside of the US, these are normally called 4x4s and are called SUVs in the US.
Things like a Cayenne, an ID.4, a VinFast, a Highlander, ect are called SUVs and share little with the last two groups. They aren’t “sport utility”, they aren’t 4×4, there is no good term for these.
Agreed, anything larger like a land cruiser or suburban is a “4×4 wagon” to me.
I can put up with “Crossover”, as it’s less about the mechanical layout and more about the bodystyle (usually halfway between a hatchback and wagon, albeit a bit taller in the body).
The term SUV, as you said, was coined for the likes of the International Scout, CJ renegade and mk1 Ford Bronco; they needed to be distinguished from the wagons/vans/panel trucks, and being a fairly small vehicle with a decently large V8, it was reasonable to suggest they were halfway between a 4×4 pickup truck and a sports car.
But for some reason, some buffoon in marketing decided “sporty” was an apt way to describe the suburban, and now here we are.
In fact, I suggest we bring back “carryall” as the term for anything larger than a wrangler/bronco.
Why can’t they sell a vehicle over 10k? Anybody can walk into a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge dealership and buy a 5500 the same as any other car. Even though it’s over 10k.
Also, I have paid attention to bridge weight restrictions. I have never ever seen a weight restriction lower than 25k on an actual public road. This is in the Western US.
Many states have different sets of regulations for 10k+ vehicles, even if you’re not using them for commercial use. Can entail a lot more in costs to register and use the vehicle, and/or a commercial license. Things like annual inspections, having to register as a truck/bus vs a passenger vehicle, taxes for every pound over 10k, etc.
My opinion is your registration should be something like $0.03 / Lb GVWR whether it’s a moped, motorcycle, car, suv, ev, coal powered, urine powered, pickup, semi, etc, or whatever the appropriate number is to handle road construction / repairs in your state. As this gets phased in, the gas and diesel taxes and subsidies should be phased out, and it should be explicitly stated that your registration is the primary source of funding for road work. A 5,000Lb vehicle driving down a road causes the same amount of wear and uses up the same amount of capacity regardless of what its fuel source is. A 10,000Lb vehicle causes significantly more wear than a 5,000Lb vehicle. A key part of this would be that it is fair, transparent, and focused strictly on the cost of maintenance to our infrastructure, not attempting to change people’s opinions or punish undesired choices, and let people decide for themselves what is the most appropriate for them.
Some people legitimately do need a big heavy inefficient vehicle, I had a 2001 Yukon XL 2500 with the 8.1L engine that weighed 7860 with both back rows of seats removed and 1/4 tank of gas. Used it only for towing and occasional winter driving, however it took maybe 10 drives a year, each over 50 miles one way, 5 of those towing about 9,000-11,000Lb 200 – 900 miles. Never got to 11MPG without a trailer, but never dipped below 8MPG with it. A 2016 Silverado by comparison gets 24MPG without, and 4-5 with the trailer. This use case isn’t really appropriate for an EV, but I couldn’t wait to get rid of it / towing duties and go back to a fun project car.
I REALLY like the Ioniq 5 N mentioned today, but don’t see myself buying a car for a loooong time. I live by Wrigley field in Chicago, work from home 4/5 days a week, almost exclusively travel around the city by public transit, bike, Lyft, or most often walking, and have driven my cars 8 times this year (estimate). They were all drive 50ish miles to either work on our Lemons race cars, or drive to a race track, do a track day, and come back. It seems like it would be extremely wasteful to replace either of my 2 toys, both with Ohlins and at least 1 spare engine and trans sitting around, even though my use case can be 100% satisfied with an EV charging over 110V in my garage just to drive it maybe 1500 miles a year, 1/4 of them on track. If I still had my last job living in SC commuting 50 miles a day to work, driving 20,000/yr avg., I absolutely would have an EV and be shopping around for its replacement by now.
Honestly no new ones, not by themselves at least. All of the automotive regulations I support come with the repeal of other automotive regulations, like getting rid of thhe footprint rule, getting rid of mandatory car insurance (like NH and of course with stipulations like in NH), getting rid of the chicken tax, getting rid of the 25 year import rule, exempting homebuilt cars from emissions, etc.
What are the NH stipulations, because on the surface, letting people drive without insurance seems like a terrible idea.
In Idaho at least you can drive without liability insurance if you put up a monetary bond with the state treasurer. I’ve never heard of anybody doing this.
I don’t think it’s crazy to let people drive without insurance. Just actually hold them financially liable for damages. Do you hold insurance in case you damage anything else?
I’ve had insurance for activities that come with a risk of injuring other people. Working at large heights above people while rigging equipment, training people how to fight with swords, and for shooting (and because I’m in the UK that’s just shooting air rifles at a target club). All of those activities, like driving, can lead to serious injuries for someone else if I have a lapse in concentration or a mechanical failure.
I’ve been hit by a car, and it wasn’t fun, but getting money for a replacement car in a few days was very useful. I’m in the UK so medical treatment was free, but I imagine the bill for treating a fractured spine would be a big one. If the guy responsible didn’t have insurance but just a limited cash dump to draw from, the situation could have been a lot worse for me, the innocent victim, and also worse for him, the person trying to save money on insurance premiums.
People who drive without insurance probably don’t have money to spare. So 1) you won’t be able to collect and be made whole, 2) if you wring every $ they have out of them that’ll probably ruin their life too.
Insurance is a good solution to both of these things.
I would be absolutely irate if the guy who just ran into the back of my wife’s car with his motorcycle was allowed to not have insurance. If he didn’t have insurance we’d have absolutely no chance of getting 8k out of a 21 year old who *checks notes* is a janitor at a local high school. And that’s just some typical bodywork etc. Imagine if my wife was hurt? How excited would you be to basically have someone assault you with their car, and then no means to really hold that person accountable?
I’m no fan of the insurance industry, but if you can’t afford liability insurance or are simply being an asshole about paying for it, you shouldn’t be driving.
“I don’t think it’s crazy to let people drive without insurance. Just actually hold them financially liable for damages.”
Good luck with actually collecting on that. You’ll very likely lose more in the process than you’ll gain. Since your insurance has the same problem your rates will go up while the person who hit you pocketed (spent) the savings.
if we just accepted the international UNECE standards, the 25 year shit would be moot 🙂
12 AV STEP meeting:
Hello I’m Elon and I’m a bullshitter.
Hi Elon!
Lets just eliminate Nitsa. Everytime they pass a law to solve a problem the answer creates the next problem. I mean unleaded gas, seat belts, cleaner burning engines great. But more metal less windows for auto safety? Leads to dead pedestrians and poor gas mileage due to weight. Do more cameras and computers. Heavier and terrible mpg. Better MPG? Led to less taxes for road repairs and expense past cost of living.
I have to say, as much as I love cars, cities need to have stricter regulations, and (at least in America) better walk/bikeability and better public transit access. In a place like Paris, it’s so well designed that you truly do not need a large car, let alone any car at all. Cities should be built for people, not cars, and that’s why I support the idea of an SUV tax, although the Parisian implementation doesn’t seem to be quite right. I agree the taxation should be on large cars in general, and not be restricted only to tall ICE vehicles.
When have the French been the population to emulate? If you eliminate everything useless in Paris well no Paris maybe a metro station. I mean everything you hear good about it is doing nothing and eating while watching other people do stuff. Museums looking at art other people create. Dining sitting eating food others created watching people walk by. What are they the worldleadeers in? Striking workers and elderly people being ignored and dieing.
You ever use the Paris metro before? It’s completely different and 100% better than any American city I’ve lived in. https://metromap.fr/en
they’re not getting rid of cars in the core of the city without anything to replace them.
Have you ever left your county?
There is, believe it or not, more to Paris/France/Europe in general than what you see and hear about on cable news…
“When have the French been the population to emulate?”
Have you been to France? There’s a lot to like.
“What are they the worldleadeers in?”
Clean energy. They have the most nuclear energy by percentage in the world.
Maybe I have more fondness for The Princess Bride than I should, because here comes the tirade:
Wallace Shawn’s character is “Vizzini.” If we remember Inigo Montoya, we remember Vizzini!
Is as-written different/better than “…Mandy Patankin’s character says to Vizzini…?”
Just look it up and say “…Inigo says to Vizzini…” or “…Mandy Patankin’s character says to Wallace Shawn’s character…!”
I’ll bet that those of us who know one of those two actor’s names are equally likely to know both; hell, I’d even go so far as to say that the majority of Autopians who know either name know both BECAUSE of Princess Bride!
I even would have accepted “…Inigo says to [googles/checks notes] Vizzini…” like the kids did two years ago.
Phew, okay, done. Thank you for indulging me. Ol’ Rob Reiner really appreciates it when I stick up for him.
All hybrid cars should display green headlights when running on battery power. Then you can eliminate ICE cars in city centers. Drive to the city on gas, turn on electric when you get there.
That’ll work great until somebody figures out how to add green LEDs to the front of their car.
Thermal cameras can see hot exhaust while visible light cameras see the licence plate.
Mandatory physical controls for climate control. No entertainment on front seat screens while in motion.
Given that distracted driving is, I believe, the #1 safety problem these days they should be focused on simple things that can be done to improve it instead of mandating more extremely expensive and dubiously useful lane-keeping and emergency braking crap.
I think France is making a mistake by using weight. They mention the congestion and parking issues, and those are a product of size. And the emissions are a product of a number of factors and should probably be addressed/taxed/regulated separately. The only reason to tax weight is for road wear, and that could be done if needed, but it doesn’t sound like that is one of the primary factors.
You want to avoid overly wide vehicles? Tax or regulate width. Vehicles tall enough that pedestrians and vehicles are hard to see over the hood? Hood height or beltline height (possibly overall height, but I can see that going wrong). Vehicles that stick out of parking spots? Length.
And, yeah, apply it to everything. EVs, diesels, gassers, even somebody’s unnecessarily massive bicycle contraption.
Both issues are made up.
So basically they created or increased the problems… and now they are trying to solve it with yet another tax.
They’re making a city that emphasizes pedestrian mobility, and if that means you have to park at the edge of the city and utilize the trams or such, that’s fine. And if it means they need to regulate vehicle size within the city or certain parts of the city, I support that. But weight does not equal size, and could lead to unintended consequences.
except that there’s nowhere to park at the edge… Or the edge involves a 1 hour+ train ride in overcrowded stinky hot conditions before hitting the first railway station inside Paris where you’ll change to subway or bus to spend again time in overcrowded stinky hot conditions…
Try Paris subway on a week day at 9AM or 5 PM ( and sub-urban trains )… You’ll see pretty fast why people that can avoid it try to avoid it.
That’s a problem that could and should be solved. But it doesn’t invalidate regulations that emphasize a walkable city and put people ahead of vehicles.
The problem is that things like edge parkings should be solved before the regulations, so that when the regulations comes in, everything is ready for it.
There’s one more or less edge parking ( it doubles as a TGV train parking so it’s not a real edge parking, but at least half of the car there are probably commuters and not TGV clients ) where I live, but it’s basically always full during the day, we could probably double it and it would still be full despite the price… but since it’s already a massive concrete block above the TGV station, and there’s already a few building built on top, there’s no chances it will get extended…
Sadly there’s a politician ego fight between Paris Mayor ( Anne Hidalgo ), the president of the Ile de France Région ( Valérie Pécresse ) and a few other people. So any trick pulled over the other is a good trick… Which means that Paris bans stuff and let Ile de France deal with it, while Ile de France does thing and gives the fingter when Paris starts to whine.
( hint : obviously one is on the right and the other on the left ).
Add to that the Administrative Millefeuille and it becomes a nightmare pretty fast.
The solution to congestion is never more car lanes or parking It just causes “Induced Demand”. I’ve spent like maybe 72 hours of life in Paris, so total outsider. From my limited understanding Paris’s problem has been they do the banning part of the Dutch model cause it’s cheap. Then don’t do the building multiple options part, because that is expensive.
I’m all for more options… But as you point out, more options is not an option… because it’s too expensive ( after paying for so many things that pass as culture but are basically ways to send money towards friends . )
The fact is that the Green dictate what needs to be done, the Mayor follows the order and doesn’t think ( she need the voters to get reelected ) so we end up with idiotic things. ( because some of the Green orders are idiotic because of the Green/Grünen Dogma )
“even somebody’s unnecessarily massive bicycle contraption.”
As a cyclist I’m pretty sure that will be self limiting.
The biggest automotive regulation I support is tiered driver’s licensing or specific endorsements. Your basic license should cover something like sedans under certain horsepower. You can get endorsements or different license levels for larger and/or more powerful vehicles. Each one requires you to prove competency with vehicles of that class, and for towing, if desired. There is no reason someone who has driven a Focus most of their life should be automatically qualified to pull that Focus behind a massive RV.
This so much! How can any 25 year old with a credit card and license rent a 26′ Uhaul no questions asked? And yet the opposite holds for Motorcycles, the squishiest transportation requires an extra endorsement.
Here in France, license check is mandatory for car rental.
( they checked it today, since I rented a car, despite the fact that I’m a “prefered” customer and I’m: known to the rental desk near my home, even those that know me well check it [ despite the fact that they already checked it 100 times+ ] )
And the 25-year-old isn’t even required for a U-Haul. You can get those at 18, but renting a compact car from Enterprise or whatever requires you to be 21 in most states and charges extra until you are 25. (Admittedly, the rental car age is not a legal guideline, but it is an industry standard.)
It’s really not that hard to drive a big U-Haul truck. The only thing that I see is lacking here is big trucks being included in Drivers Ed.
In France it’s already in place.
I’m going to give the full rundown of the licences ( in all the cases there’s one or more exam ) :
So basically, you can’t buy & drive a school bus converted in RV in France without a D Driving license and you need a B license first…
I support that, though I would further like to see horsepower/acceleration restrictions, separating trailer skills from the B license, and perhaps something that between the B and C1, size-wise.
Here in the US, you have a license or commercial license and can add a motorcycle endorsement, but no differentiation beyond that once licensed.
I’d also like to see skills tests more often. Here, you get tested when you get your license and probably never again, unless you do something to lose your license and try to get it back.
While I agree, I don’t think that limiting it to sedans is very fair. I’d add hatchbacks and coupes to the list, but make it not only have a power limit, but also a weight limit. Might bring back some cheaper little cars, like there were in the 90s.
Yes, I was unclear. I envisioned sedans as the large end of the scale for a basic license, then you’d have to get endorsements for larger vehicles. And, yeah, power and weight would both be good, as well as size.
Here’s a controversial version: I’d like tiered licensing for speed limits.
Normal license: 65-70 on the interstate.
Advanced license: 90-100mph. (Of course there could be rules where minor infractions or at-fault accidents (anywhere) will revoke that license for a period, or permanently.)
I would take any length or difficulty of test required to get that license!! Maybe a person is certified with a certain car? An advanced lisence, and a car inspection, get you a special plate & license combo?
Yes, it’s regressive and will only be for people who can afford the test and the time to get it, which isn’t fair. Yes, speed differences on the interstate can be more dangerous than absolute speed. Yes, without car inspections in most states, many US cars would be dangerous to operate at that speed. Yes, insurance would go through the roof once they learned you got that license.
I’m aware of all the reasons why it’s a bad idea.
But, counterpoint: I really just want to drive fast on those long boring stretchs of nothing.
It’s just like Airport Security Precheck.
Yes, I’d support this as well.
I’d go for that, too. I’d also be really upset when people with the normal license got into the fast lane and slowed me down. I’d want good enforcement of that.
And that’s the problem with this idea, passing at high speed makes the road more dangerous for everyone.
Forcing normal licence holders to the right also is going to increase congestion in those lanes further increasing speed gradients as well. Crowded right lanes would also make ingress and egress more dangerous for everyone including the fancy licencees too.
That makes less sense than just raising speed limits and not requiring another license. If you can drive 70 safely you can drive 90 safely.
I agree, you’ve sold me. Advanced license is unlimited speed limit (but safe, based on conditions, etc.)
“But, counterpoint: I really just want to drive fast on those long boring stretchs of nothing.”
I get that, however I doubt that fancy licence won’t make a bit of difference when a moose or whatever wanders into your path.
the Hummer EV won’t get a pass if it reach France and weight over 3,5 tons…
You will have to get a commercial ( over 3,5 tons & under 7,5 tons ) license to drive it.
Honestly the New England cities should consider doing some similar in restricting size and weight in their CBDs. 100% include EVs though. Mainly Boston, Providence, Portland, New Haven, Hartford and maybe a soft inclusion for Burlington. Boston specifically, which has been packed to gills since the population was 30. Our fearless leaders would totally let EVs except though, because they drive them.
For rural New England, we should probably start enforcing GVWR, being our infrastructure is old and built for horses. For example if I drove a Hummer EV (which is an extreme example) at 10,660 pounds not including me to my old job 11 miles away. I would exceed weight restrictions on three bridges and 7 miles of roads. The one bridge out of my house has a GVWR of three tons. This place is full of these low traffic roads that had no expectations of commercial traffic and so they built everything as cheaply as possible with no foresight what so ever.
“Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.” A little Voltaire seems appropriate. No, electric vehicles aren’t perfect. Only an idiot would claim so. There are, however, areas where they are clearly superior to internal combustion engines. You wrote…
That word you, as a writer, chose. Potential.
No, reducing gas powered vehicles has immediate, measurable and demonstrable positive environmental and local health impacts. From the instant you start an internal combustion engine you’re producing combustion products of some sort. Something is coming out of the tailpipe. With an electric vehicle, nothing. Zero. It is easily arguable that being able to breathe is a safety issue.
Safety. But whaddabout the weight of EVs? Yes, they are currently too heavy and that has a negative impact on their efficiency, which means a negative impact on their range. Fortunately, technology isn’t encased in amber. The EV industry is focused on increasing the energy density of batteries, just as ICE engineers worked on making engines lighter. A 100kWh battery 10 years from now will not weigh the same as one manufactured today.
But whaddabout where the electricity comes from? Well, let’s take a worst case scenario. An EV in West Virginia. WV gets 90% of its energy from coal. Even in WV, when you turn on your EV charged with electricity produced in WV, what comes out of the tailpipe? Oh, what tailpipe? Additionally, as far as energy generation mix, France isn’t West Virginia.
Note, as I write this, I’m watching and thoroughly enjoying day one of the Goodwood festival of speed streaming on YT.
Lastly, The Guardian has a well-documented, multi-year history of publishing anti-ev content. As any journalist should, please know your sources.
Swapping a gas-powered car for an EV, in almost any situation, reduces local emissions. Absolutely. But reducing the number of cars in dense urban environments in general has a more positive impact. E.g. replacing EVs with bikes/trains/et cetera is even better. I agree we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good, but if we can’t reduce the number of cars in Paris we can’t do it anywhere.
All Paris has to do is look to Japan. Kei Cars. EV or gas shouldn’t matter. Limit the size and power figures.
But, But, But, when I go in Ambert I can’t go there in my Kei car… I have to have my BMW to show I have succeded in life.
Note that, this is an abbreviated version of a discussion I had with a friend ( that lives in Paris obviously ) on why not buy a smaller, cheaper car if he was fearing dents and scratches on his BMW.. but it boiled down to that, many French are attached to their big car, because it shows to everybody that they have succeded and have the money to buy them. And Buying a Renault, or *gasp* a Dacia is beyond the pale for them.
Now honestly, I’d love to see Kei cars back in France.
Sadly, peacocking is a human trait, not just a French one. Actually, I guess by definition it is a life trait.
Peacocking only works when others encourage it. Thanks to ridicule and scorn you don’t see many fur coats around as you used to.
That’s what the Aston Martin Cygnet is for.
Paris Mayor, since the left got elected, only hold the seat thanks to the Greens (EELV ), so basically when the Greens say something has to be done about car size, the mayor ( and the local administration) jump : Sir, Yes, Sir.
The first innane thing has been what we call the Tramway des Maréchaux ( AKA T3a & T3b ). There’s a perfectly usable ( abandonned/semi-abandonned railway ) right of way in many cases only a few meters away from where the tramway has been built…
The Tramway had one single purpose ( and it was exposed as such, when the railway track was pointed out ) : drive cars out of the Boulevards des Maréchaux ( which runs parallel to the Périphérique. ) and onto the already over-congested Périphérique.
Then we had the Vélib ( first generation ) that was a 25Kg+ bicycle with 3 speeds… Obviously the stations uphils were always empty and it was impossible to find room in the center/downhill stations. They partially corrected it, the new Vélib is electrically assisted and lighter.
Then we had the Autolib… or trying to reproduce the bicycle concept with small electric cars ( Bolloré’s Bluecar ). It failled lamentably, because you can’t expect people to keep them clean.
Along the way the City of Paris engaged in reducing street parking places ( massively ); reducing speed ( as if you could drive fast ), closing the lower quay ( thus putting the traffic on the higher quay to the dismay of those that lives and have shops there ), changed the street map ( one morning I ended up in front of a police car coming towards me in a single way street… during the night Paris had changed the one way, I was in the old one, they were in the new one… and nobody was warned, even worse, there was no sign at all the driving way had changed ) to make it difficult to enter and leave various areas ( typicaly, it’s one way in, usually from the worst possible side, or one way out, that leads to the worst possible exit. )
They even went as far as having a crossing on Rue de Rivoli where, as a car driver, you couldn’t go you ( you were coming from a one way street so you couldn’t turn back, you couldn’t go ahead, you couldn’t turn left as it was bus/taxi/bikes incoming one way, and you couldn’t turn left as it was reserved to bus/taxi/bikes… there’s a Youtube video about it somewhere )
Then we have the Zones à Faible Emission ( Low Emission Zones ) where only cars with a sticker with the correct number are allowed. ( which is basically everything in the greater Paris up to the A86 motorway ). the sticker number is decided by how old is your car… so a 60 year old 2CV is in Category 5 and not allowed in the area. ( except that this 60 year old 2CV is probably polluting less than the brand new BMW SUV, but that’s not the point, it’s too old ) Basically in 2025, you will not be able to drive any car older than 10 years inside the A86. ( as if everybody had the money to buy a new car every few year. )
Now we have the SUV tax… This one is not a surprise, and the reason why the EV SUV are exempted, is because EV is the ultimate solution according to the Greens.
David and I definitely went back-and-forth on this A LOT.
As a function of getting a grad degree tangential to this topic, I’ve also had this back-and-forth…a lot. I’ve eventually realized that the easiest framework for these debates isn’t to ask whether a regulation is good or not, but whether it represents a form of regressive taxation or not.
And this French policy? Regressive just like its English counterpart. It’s notionally about getting rid of higher-polluting cars, but it’s functional outcome is keeping the typically lower-income people, who are driving typically older, less efficient vehicles, out of sight.
In Paris though? Wouldn’t car ownership rates among low income Parisians be very low?
no, lower income people are in area where public transports are not there or grossly ineficient. ( you need to consider more than Paris inside the ring road. )
Or if they live inside Paris, they work far outside where public transports are not there or grossly ineficient.
If your commute time is 2 hours+ in the morning and 2 hours+ in the evening through public transport and 30 minutes by car ( despite the traffic jams ), the choice is easy.
This is a great way to think about things!
I would argue that larger vehicles are usually driven by the rich. If you penalize by the cleanliness of the vehicle, then the law is regressive.
Lower income families are often larger than higher income ones, so now they will have to put a bunch of those white stick figure kids on the back window of their Escalades to avoid the extra taxes. /S
I can understand, Even to somebody that lives in the area it can be disconcerting and hard to understand.
Oh man, I took a trip in an Autolib once! The cars were kinda cool in a Children-of-Men way, but it’s juuuuust wrong.
As with many situations, the government of Paris is making laws based on ideas it really doesn’t understand. People shouldn’t legislate when they don’t understand the topic being legislated. In the US, CAFE for trucks is based on the “footprint” (wheelbase x track width), which precludes anyone from making smaller and more efficient trucks. Brilliant.
Paris Government is making local laws based on the Ideology of the Greens.
Now with the increasing weight of all the cars and especially the EV, It’s going to be fun when they reach the 3,5 metric ton limit ( in France you need a commercial licence to drive vehicle above 3,5 metric tons and below 7.5 metric tons… you need another one above that, and yet another one for busses/coaches, and… well you get it. )
There’s a few people that had a bad surprise when buying RVs… the customizations they added brought the weight above the limit, and they were not allowed to drive it unless they passed the commercial license.
They understand what the lobbyists want and what the voters don’t want. Those are the only consequences lawmakers care about.
A freedom tax on non-work trucks. Freedom isn’t free.
So you’re going to tax my 3500lb single cab fullsize pickup because it has a bed, but not a 4000lb Tesla with a giant battery that will burn down your entire town?
Isn’t that exactly the issue this article is talking about? Banning big cars because “hurr durr big car bad” without noticing that big cars aren’t even the biggest cars around?
Green Ideology : Electricity = Good, ICE = EVIL
Electricity SUV = Good, ICE SUV = EVIL
You set yourself up for this. Try harder.
https://gray-kgns-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/wlYRsX_Sja3XUKdsfM4UnJ7E4Ik=/1200×675/smart/filters:quality(85)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/2QDJMH7KQ5LLNOXOQN7OGS3U7M.jpg
I think instead, Paris should just ban cars altogether in the city center, same with all big cities, because honestly, who the fuck likes to drive through a city center?
Also kinda my point!
There are many, but I think a special class of vehicles should be able to be sold that are exempt from many of them (fuel economy/emissions, some safety equipment, and so on) in exchange for being limited to some nominal number of miles per year (2000 or less maybe?). If they need to be kept out of dense cities as a result, so be it.
In actuality, I don’t care very much if you force my minivan to have a hybrid powertrain, to pass emissions every year, to possess multiple airbags, to be safe for pedestrians, etc. I care very much if those types of regulations make it unprofitable to sell low-volume sports cars.
We need to sign on to the international UNECE standards, or we could at least be like Mexico and accept both US and UNECE standards.
Time to end CAFE, which is also counterproductive and has contributed to autobesity. In fact, SUV’s are a direct result of CAFE and a loophole created precisely for that reason.
Maybe there should be some kind of exemption for low-cost and/or low-weight cars. Perhaps we could only hold them to 2005 safety standards, which would help cars cost and weigh less while still being very safe cars to own and drive.
I mean then you still have things like TPMS that unequivocally are worthless and do not improve safety.
I get being annoyed with some aspects of TPMS, but saying they are worthless and do not improve safety is a bridge WAAAY too far.
TPMS is a godsend to the “I don’t want to think about my car unless something is wrong” crowd, which is a huge portion of the population.
I legitimately do not understand people who complain about it.
It’s failed in every vehicle I’ve owned that’s had it and displays annoying error messages every time I start up my car. I refuse to fix it, because with the pothole-ridden roads around here it’ll work for another year at best before it fails again. Everyone I know with vehicles produced by a variety of manufacturers have this issue. I’d rather just not have it at all to be honest.
That’s interesting, because I’ve owned a lot of vehicles where it hasn’t failed. I’ve had a single sensor go bad one time that was resolved for $70, and I’ve never heard anyone I know complain about it either.
I live in a very pothole-ridden area as well.
On the flip side, I can’t always tell by looking if my tires are a few lb low, and I’d rather the car tell me than having to check them regularly.
Yeah, I’ve used a can of fix-a-flat on more than one occasion and never had it mess up a sensor. I don’t remember ever having an issue with a sensor or the system, even when I’ve gone to different tires that used a higher pressure.
My beef with TPMS:
On the three cars I’ve owned with TPMS, never once did it correctly indicate low tire pressure, including when there legitimately was low tire pressure. It did go off many times when the tire pressure was just fine.
It fails to solve a problem that isn’t a problem.
It’s not a problem because eyeballing tire pressure is more than good enough to ensure safety. And if you don’t have the skill or the responsibility to eyeball your tires every now and then, you don’t have the skill or the responsibility to drive a a vehicle up to 26k lbs on a public highway.
You should really be checking tire pressures with a gauge occasionally too.
You do realize that modern tires are built such that you can’t visually tell if a tire is low, right? And with electric power steering you often can’t feel it when you drive either.
Most importantly, you can’t even eyeball your tires while you’re driving. If you pick up a nail and your tire starts slowly deflating, it’s entirely possible it could overheat and fail catastrophically before your next opportunity to notice it the old fashioned way. Note that I speak from experience here – I’ve had tires lose pressure that were fine when I started the drive. Thankfully TPMS let me know before anything serious happened.
Requiring direct TPMS is stupid (adds $200 to a set of tires and slime kills the sensors), but I like indirect TPMS (still gives you the benefits of knowing when you lose air but without the expensive sensors)
Yeah; I don’t care what anyone says: TPMS is stupid, annoying, pointless & a waste of $
CAFE is such a disaster, pretty much designed to incentivize large, inefficient vehicles.